j  V- 


jy  ,  j-  ,    ..  - 


;   '  :;  :  r 


10: :  "  \oc-     .s 


[HE  1  [BRARY 


THE  UNIVERSITY 


OF  CAL  [FORNIA 


LOS  ANGELES 


SCHOOL  OF  LAW 


PAW  OF  [ioTEL  JLaFE 


THE 


LAW  OF  HOTEL  LIFE 


rongs  and 


(i 


ights  of  |4ost  and  (SWest. 


BY 

R.  VASHON  ROGERS  JR. 

<u 
Of  Osgoode  Hall,   Barrister-at-Law 


SAN  FEANCISCO: 

SUMNER  WHITNEY  AND   COMPANY. 

BOSTON:   HOUGHTON,  OSGOOD   &  CO. 


1879. 


Copyright  1879, 
BY  SCTSCNHB  WHITNEY  &  Co. 

T 


CiVJ 


/ 


A    PREFACE. 
) 


The  author  knows  as  well  as  did  old  Burton  that 
"  books  are  so  plentiful  that  they  serve  to  put  under 
pies,  to  lap  spice  in,  and  keep  roast  meat  from  burn- 
ing, "  yet  he  ventures  to  offer  another  volume  to 
the  public,  trusting  that  some  men's  fancies  will 
incline  towards  and  approve  of  it;  for  "writings  are 
so  many  dishes,  readers  guests,  books  like  beauty — 
that  which  one  admires  another  rejects."  He  thinks 
he  can  say,  in  the  words  of  Democritus  Junior,  that 
"  as  a  good  housewife  out  of  divers  fleeces  weaves 
one  piece  of  cloth,  a  bee  gathers  wax  and  honey 
out  of  many  flowers,  and  makes  a  new  bundle  of 
all,  I  have  laboriously  collected  this  cento  out  of 
divers  authors,  and  that  sine  injuria.  I  cite  and 
quote  mine  authors." 

This  volume  was  written  at  the  suggestion  of  the 
Publishers,  as  a  companion  to  "  The  Wrongs  and 
Rights  of  a  Traveller,"  and  is  now  committed  to 
the  tender  mercies  of  general  readers,  and  to  the 
microscopic  eyes  of  the  critics  who  know  every- 
thing. Doubtless  mistakes  will  be  found;  but  if 
every  one  knew  the  law  who  thinks  he  does,  law- 
yers would  starve. 

R.  V.  R.  JK. 

Kingston,  Ont.,  March,  1879. 


671526 


CONTENTS. 


I.  A  COMMON  INN  AND  INNKEEPER,        ...        i 

II.  Crrr  HOUSE  AND  MANNERS,      -----    18 

HI.  ACCIDENTS,  ROOMS,  DOGS,      -----       31 

IV.  GUESTS,  WAGERS,  GAMES, 58 

V.  SAFES  AND  BAGGAGE,      ------       76 

VI.  FIRE,  EATS,  AND  BURGLARS,     -----    97 

VII.  HORSES  AND  STABLES,  -  -     117 

Vin.  WHAT  is  A  LIEN  ? 136 

IX.  DUTIES  OF  A  BOARDING-HOUSE  KEEPER,    -       -     152 

X.  MORE  ABOUT  BOARDING-HOUSE  KEEPERS,      -       -  166 

XI.  CHARMS  OF  FURNISHED  APARTMENTS,         -       -     173 

XII.  NOTICE  TO  QUIT  AND  TURNING  Our,       -       -       -  189 


Cvll3 


CHAPTER  I. 

A  COMMON  INN  AND  INNKEEPER. 

The  last  kiss  was  given — the  last  embi-ace  over — 
and,  amid  a  storm  of  hurrahs  and  laughter  and  a 
hailstorm  of  old  slippers  and  uncooked  rice,  we 
dashed  away  from  my  two-hours'  bride's  father's 
country  mansion  in  the  new  family  carriage,  on  our 
wedding  tour.  The  programme  was  that  we  were 
to  stay  at  the  little  village  of  Blank  that  night,  and 
on  the  morrow  we  expected  to  reach  the  city  of 
Noname,  where  we  would  be  able  to  find  convey- 
ances more  in  accord  with  the  requirements  of  the 
last  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century  of  grace 
than  "a  carriage  and  pair. 

Arm  in  arm  and  hand  in  hand  we  sat  during  the 
long,  bright  June  afternoon,  as  the  prancing  grays 
hurried  us  along  the  country  roads — now  beside 
grassy  meads,  now  beneath  o'erhanging  forest  trees, 
then  up  hill,  next  down  dale,  while  little  squirrels 
raced  along  beside  us  on  the  fence  tops,  or  little 
streamlets  dashed  along  near  by,  bubbling,  foam- 
ing, roaring  and  sparkling  in  the  sheen  of  the 
merry  sunshine,  and  the  broad  fans  of  insect  an- 
gels gently  waved  over  their  golden  disks  as  they 
floated  past;  all  nature,  animate  and  inanimate, 
smiling  merrily  upon  us,  as  if  quite  conscious  who 
and  what  we  were.  But  little  did  we  note  the 
beauties  of  sky  or  field,  cot  or  hamlet,  bird  or 
i.  rn 


2  A  COMMON  INN  AND    INNKEEPEK. 

flower,  for  Avas  it  not  our  first  drive  since  the  mys- 
tic word  of  the  white-robed  minister  of  the  Church 
had  made  of  us  twain  one  flesh  ?  The  beauties  of 
the  other's  face  and  disposition  absorbed  the  con- 
templation of  each  of  us.  Once  or  twice,  indeed, 
I  felt  inclined  to  make  a  remark  or  two  anent  the 
fields  we  passed;  but  remembering  that  I  knew  not 
a  carrot  from  a  parsnip,  until  it  was  cooked,  or 
wheat  from  oats,  except  in  the  well-known  forms  of 
bread  and  porridge,  and  not  wishing  to  be  like  Lord 
Erskine,  who,  on  coming  to  a  finely  cultivated  field 
of  wheat,  called  it  "  a  beautiful  piece  of  lavender," 
I  refrained. 

Love  in  itself  is  very  good, 
But  'tis  by  no  means  solid  food; 
And  ere  our  first  day's  drive  was  o'er, 
I  found  we  wanted  something  more. 

So  when  at  last,  as  the  shadows  began  to  lengthen 
and  still  evening  drew  on,  we  espied  in  the  valley 
beneath  us  the  village  in  which  was  our  intended 
resting  place,  I  exclaimed  : 

"  Ah  !  there's  our  inn  at  last ! " 

"  At  last !  so  soon  wearied  of  my  company !  " 
chid  my  bride,  in  gentle  tones.  "  But  why  do  peo- 
ple talk  of  a  village  'inn'  and  a  city  'hotel'? 
What  is  the  difference  between  a  hotel  and  an 
inn?" 

"  There  is  no  real  difference,"  I  replied,  glad  to 
have  the  subject  changed  from  the  one  Mrs.  Law- 
yer had  first  started.  "  The  distinction  is  but  one 
of  name,  for  a  hotel  is  but  a  common  inn  on  a 


A  COMMON  INN-  AND    INNKEEPER.  3 

grander  scale.1  Inn,  tavern,  and  hotel  are  synony- 
mous terms."  2 

"  What  do  the  words  really  mean  ?  " 

"  Have  you  forgotten  all  your  French  ?  The 
word  '  hotel '  is  derived  from  the  French  hotel,  (for 
hostel,)  and  originally  meant  a  palace,  or  residence 
for  lords  and  great  personages,  and  has,  on  that 
account  no  doubt,  been  retained  to  distinguish  the 
more  respectable  houses  of  entertainment." 

"  Well,  what  is  the  derivation  of  '  inn  '  ?  "  quer- 
ied my  wife. 

"I  was  just  going  to  say  that  that  is  rather  ob- 
scure, but  is  probably  akin  to  a  Chaldaic  word 
meaning  '  to  pitch  a  tent,'  and  is  applicable  to  all 
houses  of  entertainment.3  Inns  there  were  in  the 
far  distant  East  thirty-five  centuries  and  more  be- 
fore you  appeared  to  grace  this  mundane  sphere; 4 
although,  when  the  patriarch  Jacob  went  to  visit 
his  pretty  cousins,  he  was  not  fortunate  enough  to 
find  one,  and  had  to  make  his  bed  on  the  ground, 
taking  a  stone  for  his  pillow." 

"And  very  famous  in  after  years  did  that  just 
mentioned  pillow  become,"  said  Mrs.  L.,  interrupt- 
ing] y.  "And  much  pain  and  grief,  as  well  as  glory 
and  renown,  has  it  brought  to  those  who  have  used 
it." 

"What  meanest  thou?"  in  my  turn  queried  I. 

1  Taylor  v.  Monnot,  4  Duer,  116;  Jones  v.  Osborn,  2  Chit.  486. 

2  People  v.  Jones,  54  N.  Y.  (Barb.)  311;  St.  Louis  v.  Siegrist, 
46  Mo.  593. 

8"\Vharton's  Law  of  Innkeepers,  8. 
*  Gen.  xlii:27. 


4  A  COMMON  INN  AND    INNKEEPER. 

"  Don't  you  know  that  upon  that  stone  the  sov- 
ereigns of  England  have  been  crowned  ever  since 
the  first  Edward  stole  it  from  the  Scots,  who  had 
taken  it  from  the  Irish,  who  doubtless  had  come 
honestly  by  it,  and  that  it  now  forms  one  of  the 
wonders  and  glories  of  Westminster  Abbey  ?  " 

"  Indeed ! "  I  remarked,  Avith  an  inflection  in  my 
voice  signifying  doubt. 

"  I  wonder  who  kept  the  first  hotel,  and  what  it 
was  like,"  quoth  my  lady. 

"  History  is  silent  on  both  points,"  I  replied. 
"But  doubtless  the  early  ones  were  little  more  than 
sheds  beside  a  spring  or  well,  where  the  temporary 
lodger,  worn  and  dirty,  could  draw  forth  his  ham 
sandwich  from  an  antediluvian  carpet-bag,  eat  it  at 
his  leisure,  wash  it  down  with  pure  water,  curl  him- 
self  up  in  a  corner,  and,  undisturbed  by  the  thought 
of  having  to  rise  before  daylight  to  catch  the  ex- 
press, sleep — while  the  other  denizens  of  the  cabin 
took  their  evening  meal  at  his  expense." 

"But  no  one  could  make  much  out  of  such  a 
place,"  urged  Mrs.  Lawyer. 

"  Quite  correct.  Boniface,  in  those  days,  con- 
tented himself  with  an  iron  coin,  a  piece  of  leather 
stamped  with  the  image  of  a  cow,  or  some  such 
primitive  representative  of  the  circulating  me- 
dium." 

"  Times  are  changed  since  then,"  remarked  my 
companion. 

"  What  else  could  you  expect  ?  Are  you  a  total 
disbeliever  in  the  Darwinian  theory  of  develop- 
ment ?  Inns  and  hotels,  in  their  history,  are  excel- 


A   COilMO?!   1X3"   AND     HfNKEEPER.  5 

lent  examples  of  the  truth  of  that  hypothesis.  Pro- 
toplasm maturing  into  perfect  humanity  is  as  noth- 
ing to  them.  See  how,  through  many  gradations,  the 
primeval  well  has  become  the  well-stocked  bar-room 
of  to-day ;  the  antique  hovel  is  now  the  luxu- 
rious Windsor,  the  resplendent  Palace,  the  Grand 
Hotel  du  Louvre;  the  \mcouth  barbarian,  who 
showed  to  each  comer  his  own  proper  corner  to  lie 
in,  has  blossomed  into  the  smiling  and  gentlemanly 
proprietor  or  clerk,  who  greets  you  as  a  man  and  a 
brother ;  the  simple  charge  of  a  piece  of  iron  or 
brass  for  bed  and  board  (then  synonymous)  has 
grown  into  an  elaborate  bill,  which  requires  ducats, 
or  sovereigns,  or  eagles  to  liquidate.  But  further 
discussion  on  this  interesting  question  must  be  de- 
ferred to  some  future  day,  for  here  we  are,"  I 
added,  as  we  halted  at  "The  Farmer's  Honre." 

"  I  don't  believe  that  Joseph's  brethren  ever 
stopped  at  a  more  miserable  looking  caravansary," 
said  my  wife,  in  tones  in  which  contentment  was 
not  gi-eatly  marked.  "  Are  you  quite  sure  that  this 
is  the  inn?  It  has  no  sign." 

"  That  fact  is  of  no  moment,"  I  hastened  to  re- 
ply. "  A  sign  is  not  an  essential,  although  it  is 
evidence  of  an  inn.  Every  one  who  makes  it  his 
business  to  entertain  travelers,  and  provide  lodg- 
ings and  necessaries  for  them,  their  attendants,  and 
horses,  is  a  common  innkeeper,  whether  a  sign 
swings  before  the  door,  or  no."  1 

"And  a  common  enough  innkeeper  he  looks,  in  all 

!Bac.  Abr.  lunk.  P»;  Parker  t;.  Flint,  12  Mod.  255;  Dickin- 
son v.  Rodgers,  4  Humph.  (Tenn.)  179. 


6  A   COMMON   I>'N   A>'D    I>TN-KEEPER. 

conscience,"  said  Mrs.  Lawyer,  as  mine  host  of  the 
signless  inn  appeared  upon  the  stoop  to  receive  his 
guests.  Coatless  he  was,  waistcoat  he  had  none ; 
the  rim  of  his  hat  glistened  brightly  in  the  declin- 
ing sun,  as  if  generations  of  snails  had  made  it 
their  favorite  promenade ;  his  legs,  or  the  legs  of 
his  pantaloons,  were  not  pairs — they  differed  so 
much  in  length  ;  his  boots  knew  not  the  glories  of 
Day  &  Martin  ;  his  face  had  hydrophobia,  so  long 
was  it  since  it  had  touched  water ;  and  "  wildly 
tossed  from  cheek  to  chin  the  tumbling  cataract  of 
his  beard." 

With  the  grace  of  a  bear  and  the  ease  of  a  bull  in 
a  china-shop,  he  ushered  us  into  the  parlor,  with  its 
yellow  floor,  its  central  square  of  rag-carpet,  its 
rickety  table,  its  antique  sampler  and  gorgeous 
pictures  on  the  walls,  its  festoons  of  colored  paper 
depending  from  the  ceiling,  its  flies  buzzing  on  the 
window-panes.  Sad  were  the  glances  wre  ex- 
changed when  for  a  minute  we  were  left  in  this 
elegant  boudoir. 

"  What  a  nuisance  that  the  other  inn  was  burnt 
down  last  week,  and  that  there  is  none  but  this  mis- 
erable apology  for  one  within  thirty  miles,"  I 
growled. 

"'Tis  but  for  a  night,"  returned  my  wife,  in  con- 
solatory tones.  "  It  is  only  what  we  might  have 
expected,  for  saith  not  the  poet : 

'  Inns  are  nasty,  dusty,  fusty, 
Both  \vith  smoke  and  rubbish  musty '  ?  " 

Soon   we   mounted   the  groaning   stairs  to  our 


A  COMMON  ETN"  AND    INNKEEPER.  7 

dormitory,  and  found  the  house  to  be  a  veritable 

"  Kind  of  old  Hobgoblin  Hall, 
Now  some \vlmt  fallen  to  decay, 
"\Vith  weather  stains  upon  the  wall, 
And  stairways  worn,  and  crazy  doors, 
And  creaking  and  uneven  floors, 
And  bedrooms  dirty,  bare,  and  small." 

The  room  assigned  to  us  might  have  been  smaller, 
the  furniture  might  have  been  cheaper  and  older — 
possibly ;  but  to  have  conceived  my  blooming  bride 
in  a  more  unsuitable  place — impossible.  I  asked  for 
better  accommodation  ;  Boniface  shook  his  head 
solemnly,  (I  thought  I  heard  his  few  brains  rattle 
in  his  great  stupid  skull)  and  muttered  that  it  was 
the  best  he  had,  and  if  we  did  not  like  it  we  might 
leave  and  look  elsewhere. 

"  We  must  make  the  best  of  it,  my  dear.  The 
landlord  is  only  bound  to  provide  reasonable  and 
proper  accommodation,  even  if  there  were  better  in 
the  house ;  he  need  not  give  his  guests  the  precise 
rooms  they  may  select."  l 

We  resolved  to  display  the  Christian  grace  of 
resignation. 

As  speedily  as  possible  we  arranged  our  toilets 
and  descended  once  more  to  the  lower  regions, 
with  the  faint  hope  that  the  dining-room  might  be 
better  furnished  with  the  good  things  of  this  life 
than  either  the  parlor  or  bed-room.  Sad  to  relate, 
the  fates  were  still  against  us :  we  found,  on  enter- 

1  Fell  r.  Knight,  8  Mees.  &  \V.  269;  Doyle  v.  Walker,  26 
Q.  B.  (Ont.)502. 


8  A  COMMON  INN  AND    INNKEEPER. 

ing  the  salle  d,  manger,  a  couple  of  small  tables  put 
together  iu  the  middle  of  the  room,  covered  with 
three  or  four  cloths  of  different  ages  and  dates  of 
washing,  and  arranged  as  much  like  one  as  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  case  would  allow.  Upon  these 
were  laid  knives  and  forks ;  some  of  the  knife-hand- 
les were  green,  others  red,  and  a  few  yellow,  and  as 
all  the  forks  were  black,  the  combination  of  colors 
was  exceedingly  striking.  Soon  the  rest  of  the 
paraphernalia  and  the  comestibles  appeared,  and 
then  Josh  Billings'  description  became  strictly  ap- 
plicable ;  "  Tea  tew  kold  tew  melt  butter ;  fride 
potatoze  which  resembled  the  chips  a  tew-inch 
augur  makes  in  its  journey  thru  an  oke  log  ;  bread 
solid;  biefstake  about  az  thick  as  blister  plaster, 
and  az  tough  as  a  hound's  ear ;  table  kovered  with 
plates;  a  few  scared-tew-death  pickles  on  one  of 
them,  and  6  fly-indorsed  crackers  on  another;  a 
pewterunktoon  kaster,  with  3  bottles  in  it — one 
without  any  mustard,  and  one  with  tew  inches  of 
drowned  flies  and  vinegar  in  it." 

Fortunately,  long  abstinence  came  to  our  aid, 
and  hunger,  which  covers  a  multitude  of  sins  in 
cookery  and  "  dishing  up,"  was  present,  and  our 
manducatory  powers  were  good ;  so  we  managed 
to  supply  the  cravings  of  the  inner  man  to  some 
extent. 

"  What  is  this  ?  "  I  asked  of  the  landlord,  as  he 
handed  me  a  most  suspicious  looking  fluid. 

"  It's  bean  soup,"  he  gruffly  replied. 

"  Never  mind  what  it's  been — what  is  it  now?" 
I  asked  a  second  time.  A  smile  from  my  wife 


A  COMMON  INN  AND    INNKEEPER.  9 

revealed  to  me  my  error,  and  I  saved  the  astonished 
man  the  necessity  of  a  reply. 

At  the  table  we  were  joined  by  an  acquaintance, 
who  informed  me  that  he  had  great  difficulty  in 
obtaining  admission  to  the  house,  as  the  innkeeper 
had  a  grudge  against  him. 

"  No  matter  what  personal  objection  a  host  may 
have,  he  cannot  refuse  to  receive  a  guest.  Every 
one  who  opens  an  inn  by  the  wayside,  and  professes 
to  exercise  the  business  and  employment  of  a  com- 
mon innkeeper,  is  bound  to  afford  such  shelter  and 
accommodation  as  he  possesses  to  all  travelers  who 
apply  therefor,  and  tender,  or  are  able  to  pay,  the 
customary  charges,'' l  I  remarked. 

"  But  surely  one  is  not  bound  to  take  the  trouble 
to  make  an  actual  tender  ?  "  questioned  my  friend. 

"  I  am  not  quite  so  sure  on  that  point,"  I  replied. 
"  Coleridge,  J.,  once  said  that  it  is  the  custom  so 
universal  with  innkeepers  to  trust  that  a  person 
will  pay  before  he  leaves  the  inn,  that  it  cannot 
be  necessary  for  a  guest  to  tender  money  before  he 
enters.2  But,  in  a  subsequent  case,  Lord  Abinger 
said  that  he  could  not  agree  witli  Coleridge's  opin- 
ion,3 and  three  other  judges  concurred  with  Abinger, 
although  the  court  was  not  called  upon  to  decide 
the  matter.  In  fact,  the  point  has  never  been  defi- 
nitely settled  in  England.  Text-writers,  however, 

1  Taylor  v.  Humphreys,  30  Law  J.  262;  Watson  v.  Cross,  2 
Duval,  (Ky.)  147;  Newton  v.  Trigg,  1  Show.  27G;  Common- 
wealth v.  Mitchell,  1  Phil.  (Pa.)  63. 

2  Pvex  v.  Ivens,  7  Car.  &  P.  213. 

s  Fell  v.  Knight,  8  Mees.  &  W.  276. 


10  A  COMMON  INN  AND    INNKEEPEE. 

think  an  offer  to  pay  requisite,!  and  it  has  been  so 
held  in  Canada."  2 

"  But  what,"  said  my  friend,  "  if  the  proprietor 
is  rude  enough  to  slam  the  door  in  your  face,  and 
you  cannot  see  even  an  open  window?" 

"  Oh,  in  that  case  even  Abinger  would  dispense 
with  a  tender."  3 

"  It  seems  hard  that  a  man  must  admit  every  one 
into  his  house,  whether  he  wishes  or  no,"  said  my 
wife. 

"  Reflect,  my  dear,"  I  replied,  "  that  if  an  inn- 
keeper was  allowed  to  choose  his  guests  and  re- 
ceive only  those  whom  he  saw  fit,  unfortunate 
travelers,  although  able  and  willing  to  pay  for  en- 
tertainment, might  be  compelled,  through  the  mere 
caprice  of  the  innkeeper,  to  wander  about  without 
shelter,  exposed  to  the  heats  of  summer,  the  rains 
of  autumn,  the  snows  of  winter,  or  the  winds  of 
spring." 

"  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  improper  persons 
must  be  received  ?  " 

"  Oh  dear  no  !  A  traveler  who  behaves  in  a  dis- 
orderly or  improper  manner  may  be  refused  admis- 
sion,4 and  so  may  one  who  has  a  contagious  disease, 
or  is  drunk.5  And,  of  course,  if  there  is  no  room, 
admission  may  be  refused.6  But  it  will  not  do  for 

1  Wharton,  p.  78. 

2  Doyle  v.  Walker,  26  Q.  B.  (Ont.)  502. 
8  Fell  v.  Knight,  supra. 

4Howell  v.  Jackson,  G  Car.  &  P.  742;  Moriarty  v.  Brooks, 
Ibid.  634. 

5  Markham  v.  Brown,  8  N.  H.  523;  Fell  v.  Knight,  supra. 

6  Hex  v.  Ivens,  supra;  Fell  v.  Knight,  supra. 


A   COMMON   IXX   AND    IX>-KEEPEK.  H 

the  publican  to  say  that  he  has  no  room,  if  such 
statement  be  false;  for  that  venerable  authority, 
Rolle,  says :  '  Si  un  hotelier  refuse  un  guest  sur 
pretense  que  son  maison  est  pleine  cle  guests,  si  est 
soit  faux,  action  sur  le  case  git.' " 1 

"  You  don't  say  so ! "  said  my  friend,  aghast  at 
the  jargon.  I  continued  : 

"And  a  publican  must  not  knowingly  allow 
thieves,  or  reputed  thieves,  to  meet  in  his  house, 
however  lawful  or  laudable  their  object  may  be."2 

"  Suppose  they  wanted  to  hold  a  prayer-meeting, 
what  then?"  asked  my  wife. 

"I  cannot  say  how  that  would  be;  but  a  friendly 
meeting  for  collection  of  funds  was  objected  to. 
Nor  should  he  allow  a  policeman,  while  on  duty, 
to  remain  on  his  premises,  except  in  the  execution 
of  that  duty. 3  And  he  may  prohibit  the  entry  of 
one  whose  misconduct  or  filthy  condition  would 
subject  his  guests  to  annoyance.4  And  I  remember 
reading  that  Mrs.  Woodhull  and  Miss  Claflin  were 
turned  away  from  a  New  York  hotel  on  the  ground 
of  their  want  of  character." 

"What  if  the  poor  hotel-keeper  is  sick?"  in- 
quired Mrs.  Lawyer. 

"Neither  illness,  nor  insanity,  nor  lunacy,  nor 
idiocy,  nor  hypochondriacism,  nor  hypochondriasis, 
nor  vapors,  nor  absence,  nor  intended  absence,  can 

i Roll.  Abr.  3  F;  White's  Case,  Dyer,  158. 

2  Marshall  v.  Fox,  Law  Hep.  6  Q.  B.  370;  Markham  r.  Brown, 
8X.H.  523. 

3  Mulliiis  v.  Collins,  43  Law  J.  M.  C.  67. 

4  Markham  v.  Brown,  supra;  Pinkerton  v.  Woodward,  33 
Cal.  557. 


12  A   COMMON  INN  AND    INNKEEPER. 

avail  the  landlord  as  an  excuse  for  refusing  admis- 
sion.i  Although  the  illness  or  desertion  of  his 
servants,  if  he  has  not  been  able  to  replace  them, 
might  be  an  excuse;  and  perchance  his  own  in- 
fancy, and  perchance  not."  2 

"  What  can  you  do  if  he  refuses  to  let  you  in  ?  " 
asked  my  friend.  "Break  open  the  door?" 

"No,  that  might  lead  to  a  breach  of  the  peace. 
You  may  either  sue  him  for  damages,  or  have  him 
indicted  and  fined ;  and  it  is  also  said  in  England 
that  the  constable  of  the  town,  if  his  assistance  is 
invoked,  may  force  the  recalcitrant  publican  to  re- 
ceive and  entertain  the  guest.3  If  you  sue  him  you 
will  have  to  prove  that  he  kept  a  common  inn ;  *  that 
you  are  a  traveler,5  and  came  to  the  inn  and  de- 
manded to  be  received  and  lodged  as  a  guest ; 
that  he  had  sufficient  accommodation,e  and  refused 
to  take  you  in,  although  you  were  in  a  fit  and 
proper  state  to  be  received/  and  offered  to  pay  a 
reasonable  sum  for  accommodation." 

"  In  most  hotels  they  keep  a  register  in  which  one 
is  expected  to  inscribe  his  cognomen  by  means  of  a 
pen  of  the  most  villainous  description;  must  one 
give  his  name,  or  may  he  travel  incog,  and  without 
exhibiting  his  cacography  ?  " 

1  Bac.  Abr.  Inns,  c.  4;  Cross  v.  Andrews,  Cro.  Eliz.  622. 

2  Addison  on  Torts,  938.    But  see  Com.  Dig.  vol.  1,  p.  413. 
8  Curw.  Hawk.  714. 

*  Cayle'a  Case,  8  Coke,  32. 

6  Rex  v.  Luellin,  12  Mod.  445;  Reg.  v.  Rymner,  L.  R.  2  Q.  B. 
D.  136. 

6  Fell  v.  Knight,  8  Mees.  &  W.  269. 
"  Fell  v.  Knight,  supra. 


A   COMMON  INN  AND    INNKEEPER.  13 

"  An  innkeeper  has  no  right  to  pry  into  a  guest's 
affairs,  and  insist  upon  knowing  his  name  and  ad- 
dress," *  I  replied. 

"  Talking  about  registers,"  began  my  friend  Jones, 
but  in  tones  so  low  that  what  he  said  must  go  in 
the  foot  notes. 2 

"Last  summer,"  continued  talkative  Jones,  "I 
tried  to  get  quarters  late  one  Saturday  night  at  a 
village  inn,  but  the  proprietor  refused  to  admit  me ; 
and  a  venerable  female  put  her  head  out  of  the 
window,  like  Sisera's  mother,  and  told  me  that 
they  were  all  in  bed,  and  that  they  could  not  take 
in  those  who  profaned  the  Sabbath  day." 

"You  might  have  sued  for  damages,"  I  said,  "for 
the  innkeeper  being  cosily  settled  in  his  bed  for  the 
night,  or  it  being  Sunday,  makes  no  difference  in 
a  traveler's  rights ; 3  at  least  where,  as  in  England, 
it  is  not  illegal  to  travel  on  that  sacred  day." 

"  I  think  you  said  that  one  must  be  a  traveler  be- 
fore one  could  claim  the  rights  of  a  guest — is  that 
an  essential?" 

"  Yes,  a  sine  qua  non.  Bacon  says  :  '  Inns  are  for 

1  Rex  v.  Ivens,  7  Car.  &  P.  213. 

2  "  Did  you  see  that  absurd  paragraph  concerning  a  traveler 
who  was  writing  his  name  in  the  book  when  a  B.  B.  sallied 
out  of  a  crack  and  took  his  way  slowly  and  sedately  across 
the  page.    The  newly  arrived  paused  and  remarked:  'I've 
been  bled  by  St.  Joe  fleas,  bitten  by  Kansas  City  spiders,  and 
interviewed  by  Fort  Scot  graybacks,  but  I'll  be  hanged  if  I 
ever  was  in  a  place  before  where  the  bedbugs  looked  over  the 
hotel  register  to  find  out  where  your  room  was."  " 

"It   is  generally  not   necessary  for   them  to  take   that 
trouble,"  I  replied. 

3  Hex  v.  Ivens,  7  Car.  &  P.  213. 

2. 


14  A  COMMON  INN  AND    INNKEEPER. 

passengers  and  wayfaring  men,  so  that  a  friend  or 
a  neighbor  shall  have  no  action  as  a  guest ' l  (unless, 
indeed,  the  neighbor  be  on  his  travels  2).  The  Latin 
word  for  an  inn  is,  as  of  course  you  know,  diversor- 
ium,  because  he  who  lodges  there  is  quasi  dwertens 
se  a  via" 3 

"  What  wretched  food !"  said  my  wife,  as  she 
helped  herself  to  a  biscuit.  "  'Tis  enough  to  poison 
one." 

"  It  is  by  no  means  a  feast  of  delicacies — the  brains 
of  singing  birds,  the  roe  of  mullets,  or  the  sunny 
halves  of  peaches,"  returned  our  friend. 

"  Well,  my  dear,"  I  replied,  "  a  publican  selling 
unwholesome  drink  or  victuals  may  be  indicted  for 
a  misdemeanor  at  common  law ;  and  the  unhappy 
recipient  of  his  noxious  mixtures  may  maintain  an 
action  for  the  injury  done  ;  4  and  this  is  so  even  if 
a  servant  provides  the  goods  without  the  master's 

express  directions."  5 

****** 

A  stroll  through  the  village,  and  a  little  moraliz- 
ing beside  the  scarcely  cold  embers  of  the  rival  inn. 
where 

"  Imagination  fondly  stooped  to  trace 
The  parlor  splendors  of  that  festive  place, 
The  whitewashed  wall,  the  nicely  sanded  floor, 
The  varnish' d  clock  that  clicked  behind  the  door," 

passed  the  time  until  Darkness  spread  her  sable 

1  Bac.  Abr.  vol.  4,  p.  448.  8  Cayle's  Case. 

2  Walling  v.  Potter,  35  Conn.  183.     4  Roll.  Abr.  95. 

6  1  Blackst.  Com.  430. 


A  COMMOX  lira  AND    INNKEEPER.  15 

robe  over  all  the  earth.  We  sat  outside  our  inn  in 
the  fresh  air,  and  listened  while  the  myriad  crea- 
tures which  seem  born  on  every  summer  night  up- 
lifted in  joy  their  stridulous  voices,  piping  the  whole 
chromatic  scale  with  infinite  self-satisfaction.  In- 
numerable crickets  sent  forth  what,  perhaps,  were 
gratulations  on  our  arrival ;  a  colony  of  tree-toads 
asked,  in  the  key  of  C  sharp  major,  after  their  rela- 
tives in  the  back  country  ;  while  the  swell  bass  of 
the  bull-frogs  seemed  to  be,  with  deep  and  hearty 
utterances,  thanking  heaven  that  their  dwelling- 
places  were  beside  pastures  green  in  cooling  streams. 
For  a  while  we  listened  to  this  concert  of  lilipu- 
tians  rising  higher  and  higher  as  Nature  hushed  to 
sleep  her  children  of  a  larger  growth.  Ere  long,  the 
village  bell  tolled  the  hour  for  retiring.  I  told  the 
landlady  to  call  us  betimes,  and  then  my  wife  and 
self  shut  ourselves  up  in  our  little  room  for  the  night. 
Very  weariness  induced  the  partner  of  my  joys 
and  sorrows  to  commit  her  tender  frame  to  the 
coarse  bedclothes  ;  but  before  "  tired  Nature's  sweet 
restorer,  balmy  sleep  "  arrived,  and  with  repose  our 
eyelids  closed,  an  entomological  hunt  began.  First 
a  host  of  little  black  bandits  found  us  out,  and  at- 
tacked us  right  vigorously,  skirmishing  bravely  and 
as  systematically  as  if  they  had  been  trained  in  the 
schools  of  that  educator  of  fleas,  Signer  Bertolotto, 
only  his  students  always  crawl  carefully  along  and 
revcrhop,  as  we  found  by  experience  that  our  tierce 
assailants  did.  After  we  had  disposed  of  these  light 
cavalry — these  F  sharps — for  a  time,  and  were  again 
endeavoring  to  compose  our  minds  to  sleep,  there 


16  A   COMMON  INX  JLNT)    INNKEEPEB. 

came  a  detachment  of  the  B-flat  brigade,  of  alder- 
manic  proportions,  pressing  slowly  on.  Again  there 
was  a  search  as  for  hidden  treasures.  Faugh  !  what 
a  time  we  had,  pursuing  and  capturing,  crushing 
and  decapitating,  hosts  of  creatures  not  to  be  named 
in  cars  polite.  Most  hideous  night,  thou  wert  not 
sent  for  slumber !  It  would  almost  have  been  better 
for  us  had  we  been  inmates  of  the  hospital  for  such 
creatures  at  Surat,  for  there  we  would  have  been 
paid  for  the  feast  we  furnished.  Here  we  had  the 
prospect  of  paying  for  our  pains  and  pangs. 

I  am  an  ardent  entomologist;  but  I  solemnly 
avow  I  grew  tired  that  night  of  my  favorite  science. 
'Twas  vain  to  think  of  slumber — 

Not  poppy,  nor  mandragora, 
Nor  all  the  drowsy  syrups  of  the  world, 

nor  yet  the  plan  adopted  by  the  Samoan  islanders, 
who  place  a  snake,  imprisoned  in  bamboo,  beneath 
their  heads  and  find  the  hissing  of  the  reptile  highly 
soporific,  could  medicine  us  to  that  sweet  sleep 
which  nature  so  much  needed.  At  length  we  arose 
in  despair,  donned  our  apparel,  and  sat  down  be- 
side the  window  to  watch  for  the  first  bright  tints 
heralding  the  advent  of  the  glorious  king  of  day. 

"Must  we  pay  for  such  wretched  accommoda- 
tion ? "  asked  my  wife,  mournfully.  I  shook  my 
head  as  I  replied  : 

"  I  fear  me  so.1  We  might  escape ; 2  but  I  don't 
want  to  have  a  row  about  my  bill  in  a  dollar  house." 

1  Hart  v.  Windsor,  12  Mees.  &  "W.  68. 

2  Button  v.  Temple,  Ibid.  52,  60. 


A  COMMON  IXN  AXD    INTfKEEPEK.  17 

As  soon  as  morning  broke  we  began  our  prepara- 
tions for  an  early  departure  from  the  purgatory  in 
which  we  had  passed  the  night.  When  we  had 
descended,  and  had  summoned  the  lady  of  the 
house  to  settle  with  her,  my  wife  spoke  strongly 
about  the  other  occupants  of  our  bed. 

The  woman  hotly  exclaimed,  "  You  are  mistaken, 
marm ;  I  am  sure  there  is  not  a  single  flea  in  the 
whole  house ! " 

"A  single  flea !  "  retorted  my  wife,  with  wither- 
ing scorn  ;  "  a  single  flea  !  I  should  think  not ;  foi 
I  am  sure  that  they  are  all  married,  and  have  large 
families,  too." 

"Yes,"  I  added, 

'The  little  fleas  have  lesser  fleas 
Upon  their  backs  to  bite  'em  ; 

The  lesser  fleas  have  other  fleas, 
And  so  ad  infinitum.  " 


CHAPTER  II. 
CITY  HOUSE  AND  MANNERS. 

The  next  evening,  as  Mrs.  Lawyer  and  this  pres- 
ent writer  were  rattling  along  at  the  rate  of  thirty 
or  forty  miles  an  hour  in  the  tail  of  the  iron  horse, 
my  bride,  imagining  that  she  would  like  to  know 
somewhat  of  the  law,  which  had  been  my  mistress 
for  many  years,  and  the  ennui  of  the  honeymoon 
having  already  commenced,  asked  me  what  was  the 
legal  definition  of  an  inn. 

I  replied  :  "  The  definitions  of  an  inn,  like  those 
of  lovely  woman,  are  very  numerous :  but  perhaps 
the  most  concise  is  that  given  by  old  Petersdorff, 
who  says  it  is  '  a  house  for  the  reception  and  enter- 
tainment of  all  comers  for  gain.' l  Judge  Bayley 
defined  it  to  be  a  house  where  the  traveler  is  fur- 
nished with  everything  he  has  occasion  for  while  on 
the  way."  2 

"I  should  dearly  love  tj  stop  at  such  an  inn," 
broke  in  my  wife.  "The  worthy  host  would  find 
my  wants  neither  few  nor  small." 

"  Oh,  of  course,  the  everything  is  to  be  taken  not 
only  cum  grano  salis  but  with  a  whole  cellar  full 
of  that  condiment.  For  instance,  the  landlord  is 
not  bound  to  provide  clothes  or  wearing  apparel  for 

1  Peters.  Abr.  vol.  5,  p.  159;  Jeremy  on  Bailments,  139. 

2  Thompson  v.  Lacy,  3  B.  &  Aid.  203.    See  also  Dickenson 
«.  Rodgers,  4  Humph.  179. 

[18] 


CITY   HOUSE   AND  MAXNEBS.  19 

his  guest.i  But  to  proceed  with  our  subject.  Best, 
J.,  tried  his  hand — a  good  one,  too — at  definition- 
making,  and  declared  an  inn  or  hotel  to  be  a  house, 
the  owner  of  which  holds  out  that  he  will  receive 
all  travelers  and  sojourners  who  are  willing  to  pay 
a  price  adequate  to  the  sort  of  accommodation 
provided,  and  who  come  in  a  state  in  which  they 
are  fit  to  be  received.2  Another  judge  says  it  is  a 
public  house  of  entertainment  for  all  who  choose  to 
visit  it  as  guests  without  any  previous  agreement 
as  to  the  time  of  their  stay  or  the  terms  of  pay- 
ment.3 The  judges  have,  also,  got  off  definitions 
of  the  word  '  innkeeper.'  It  has  been  said  that 
every  one  who  makes  it  his  business  to  entertain 
travelers  and  passengers  and  provide  lodging  and 
necessaries  for  them  and  their  horses  and  attend- 
ants, is  a  common  innkeeper.4  But  Bacon,  very 
wisely  and  prudently,  adds  to  this  description  the 
important  words  'for  a  reasonable  compensation.'5 
One  who  entertains  travelers  for  payment  only 
occasionally,  or  takes  in  persons  under  an  express 
contract,  and  shuts  his  doors  upon  those  whom  he 
chooses,  is  not  an  innkeeper,  nor  is  he  liable  as 
such.6  Stables  are  not  necessary  to  constitute  an 

1  Bacon's  Abr.  Inns,  C. 

2  Thompson  v.  Lacy,  3  B.  &  Aid.  283. 

8  Wintermute  v.  Clarke,  5  Sand.  247;  Pinkerton  v.  Wood- 
ward, 33  Cal.  557. 

4  Parker  v.  Flint,  12  Mod.  255;  Parkhurst  v.  Foster,  Salk. 
287. 

5  Bacon's  Abr.  Inn.  C. 

6  Lyonr.  Smith,  1  Morris,  184;  State  v.  Mathews,  2  Dev.  &  B. 
424;  Bonner  v.  Welborn,  7  Geo.  296.    But  see  Commonwealth 
v.  Wetherbee,  101  Mass.  214. 


20  CITY  HOUSE   AND  MANNERS. 

inn;1  nor  is  it  essential  that  the  meals  should  be 
served  at  table  d'hote?  A  house  for  the  reception 
and  entertainment  principally  of  emigrants  arriv- 
ing at  a  seaport  and  usually  remaining  but  a  short 
time,  is  yet  an  inn."  3 

Here  I  stopped  because  I  had  nothing  more  to  say  ; 
but  seeing  that  my  wife  was  gazing  out  of  the  win- 
dow in  a  most  inattentive  manner,  yet  not  wishing 
her  to  think  that  my  fund  of  knowledge  Avas  ex- 
hausted, I  added  :  "  But  a  truce  to  this  style  of 
conversation.  Remember  that  we  arc  a  newly 
married  couple,  and  are  not  expected  to  talk  so 
rationally." 

A  pause  ensued,  during  which,  with  great  amuse- 
ment and  no  little  surprise  at  the  facts  and  doc- 
trines enunciated,  we  listened  to  the  following 
dialogue  between  two  rosy-cheeked  Englishmen 
sitting  in  the  seat  behind  us  : 

First  Briton  (loquitur). — "  How  disgusting  it  is 
to  see  those  vile  spittoons  in  hotels,  in  private 
houses,  in  churches  —  everywhere;  and  notwith- 
standing that  their  name  is  legion,  the  essence  of 
nicotine  is  to  be  seen  on  all  sides,  dyeing  the  floors, 
the  walls,  the  furniture." 

Second  Briton.  —  "I  have  sometimes  doubted 
Avhether  the  Americans  expectorate  to  obtain  good 
luck,  or  whether  it  is  that  they  have  such  good  for- 
tune ever  attending  upon  their  designs  and  plans 
because  they  expectorate  so  much." 

1  Thompson  v.  Lacy,  supra. 

2  Krolm  r.  Sweeny,  2  Daly,  N.  Y.  200. 

s  Willard  v.  lieinhardt,  2  E.  D.  Smith,  148. 


CITY  HOUSE  AND  MANNERS.  21 

First  B.  (rather  dazed). — "I  don't  understand 
you." 

Second  B.  (in  tones  of  surprise  at  the  other's 
want  of  comprehension). — "Don't  you  know  that 
many  Englishmen  spit  if  they  meet  a  white  horse, 
or  a  squinting  man,  or  a  magpie,  or  if,  inadvertently, 
they  step  under  a  ladder,  or  wash  their  hands  in 
the  same  basin  as  a  friend  ?  In  Lancashire,  boys 
spit  over  their  fingers  before  beginning  to  fight,  and 
travelers  do  the  same  on  a  stone  when  leaving 
home,  and  then  throw  it  away,  and  market  people 
do  it  on  the  first  money  they  receive." 

First  B.  (interrogatively). — "  But,  if  these  dirty 
people  do  indulge  in  this  unseemly  habit,  what 
then?" 

Second  B. — "  Why,  they  consider  it  a  charm  that 
will  bring  good  luck,  or  avert  evil.  Swedish  peas- 
ants expectorate  thrice  if  they  cross  water  after 
dark.  The  old  Athenians  used  to  spit  if  they 
passed  a  madman.  The  savage  New  Zealand  priest 
wets  two  sticks  with  his  saliva  when  he  strives  to 
divine  the  result  of  a  coming  battle." 

First  B. — "  But  the  why  and  the  wherefore  of  all 
this  expectoration  ?  " 

Second  B. — "  Because  the  mouth  was  once  con- 
sidered the  only  portal  by  which  evil  spirits  could 
enter  into  a  man,  and  by  which  alone  they  could  be 
forced  to  make  their  exit;  and  the  idea  was  to 
drive  the  fiends  out  with  the  saliva.  The  Mussul- 
mans made  spitting  and  nose-blowing  a  part  of 
their  religious  ceremonies,  for  they  hoped  thereby 
to  free  themselves  from  the  demons  which  they  be- 


22  CITY  HOUSE   AND  MANNERS. 

tiered  filled  the  air ;  and  a  Kamtschatkan  priest, 
after  he  has  sprinkled  with  holy  water  the  babe 
brought  to  the  baptismal  font,  spits  solemnly  to 
north  and  south,  to  cast  and  west." 

AAvild  shriek  of  the  locomotive,  announcing  that 
we  were  drawing  near  our  destination,  and  the 
necessary  preparation*  consequent  upon  such  ar- 
rival, prevented  us  listening  further  to  this  conver- 
sation. I  remarked  to  my  wife  that  if  I  had  never 
known  of  evil  spirits  being  laid  by  the  efflux  of 
saliva,  I  had  at  least  heard  of  their  being  raised 
thereby,  and  instanced  Shylock  and  Signer  Antonio. 

We  drove  up  to  the  "Occidental  House"  in  the 
bus  belonging  to  that  famous  establishment.  The 

o       o 

satchel  of  a  fellow-traveler  was  lost  off  the  top  of 
the  carriage.  I  endeavored  to  console  him  with 
the  information  that  years  ago,  where  the  keeper 
of  a  public  house  gave  notice  that  he  would  furnish 
a  freo  conveyance  to  and  from  tho  cars  to  all  pas- 
sengers, Avith  their  baggage,  and  for  that  purpose 
employed  the  owner  of  certain  carriages  to  take 
passengers  and  their  baggage,  free  of  charge,  to  his 
house,  and  a  traveler,  who  knew  of  this  arrange- 
ment, drove  in  one  of  these  cabs  to  the  hotel,  and 
on  the  way  there  had  his  trunk  lost  or  stolen 
through  the  want  of  skill  or  care  of  the  driver,  the 
innkeeper  was  held  liable  to  make  good  the  loss. 
The  court  that  decided  the  point  held  that  it  was 
immaterial  whether  he  was  responsible  as  n  common 
carrier  or  as  an  innkeeper,  as  in  cither  case  tho 
consideration  for  the  undertaking  was  the  profit  to 
be  derived  from  the  entertainment  of  the  traveler 


CITY  HOtTSB  AND  MA>*KERS.  23 

as  a  guest,  and  that  an  implied  promise  to  take  care 
of  the  baggage  was  founded  on  such  consideration.1 

My  fellow-traveler  seemed  not  a  little  pleased 
with  my  information,  and  expressed  his  intention 
of  seeking  an  early  interview  with  the  landlord  of 
the  "  Occidental  "  on  the  subject  of  the  lost  satchel. 

While  in  the  bus,  a  man  who  appeared  to  bo  an 
agent  for  a  rival  house  made  some  very  dispar- 
aging remarks  with  regard  to  the  "  Occidental,"  with 

o      o  o  * 

more  vehemence  than  elegance  or  truthfulness,  evi- 
dently with  the  design  of  inducing  some  intending 
guests  to  change  their  minds  and  go  elsewhere.  It 
was  well  for  him  that  none  of  the  "  Occidental "  peo- 
ple heard  him,  for  if  they  had  he  might  speedily  have 
become  the  defendant  in  an  accion  at  law,  for  mis- 
statements  like  his  are  actionablc.2 

What  a  contrast  between  the  palatial  mansion 
at  which  we  now  alighted,  and  the  hovel  which  the 
previous  night  had  covered  our  heads — (protection 
it  had  not  afforded).  The  small  and  dirty  en- 
trance of  the  one  was  exchanged  for  a  spacious  and 
lofty  hall  in  the  other,  paved  with  marble  and  fitted 
up  with  comfortable  sofas  and  cushions,  on  which 
was  lounging  and  smoking,  talking  and  reading,  a 
multifarious  lot  of  humanity ;  the  parlor,  with  its 
yellow  paint  and  rag  carpet,  was  replaced  by  large, 
well  lighted  and  elegantly  furnished  drawing-rooms, 
with  carpets  so  soft  that  a  footstep  was  no  more 
heard  than  a  passing  shadow,  and  gorgeous  mirrors 
reflecting  the  smiles,  faces  and  elaborately  artistic 

1  Dickinson  v.  Winchester,  4  Cusli.  114. 

2  Bacon's  Abr.  Inns,  B. 


24  CITY  HOUSE   AND  MANNEBS. 

toilets  of  city  belles,  and  the  trim  ^figures  and  prim, 
moustaches  of  youthful  swells ;  a  pretty  little  room, 
yclept  an  elevator,  neatly  carpeted,  well  lighted, 
free  from  noxious  scents,  with  comfortable  scats 
and  handsome  reflectors,  led  up  on  high,  instead  of 
the  groaning,  creaking  stairs  of  the  country  inn. 
The  bedrooms,  with  their  spotless  linen,  luxurious 
beds,  dainty  carpets,  and  cosy  chairs,  rested  and 
refreshed  one's  weary  bones  by  their  very  appear- 
ance. The  noble  dining-hall,  with  its  delicately 
tinted  walls,  its  pillars  and  gilded  roof,  with  neatly 
dressed  waiters,  and  the  master  of  ceremonies  pa- 
trolling the  room  seeing  to  the  comfort  of  the  guests, 
the  arrangements  of  their  places,  and  that  each 
servant  did  his  duty,  gave  a  zest  to  one's  appetite 
which  the  tempting  viands  increased  a  hundred  fold, 
and  the  soups,  fish,  releves,  entrees,  game,  relishes, 
vegetables,  pastry,  and  dessert  of  the  menu  differed 
from  the  bill  of  fare  of  the  previous  day  as  does 
light  from  darkness,  sweet  from  bitter. 

As  we  were  ascending  in  the  luxuriously  furnished, 
brilliantly  lighted  and  gently  moving  elevator,  a  nin- 
nyhammer  tried  to  get  on  after  the  conductor  had 
started.  In  doing  so  he  well  nigh  severed  the  con- 
nection between  his  ill-stored  head  and  well-fed 
body.  I  told  him  that  his  conduct  was  most  fool- 
hardy, for  if  he  had  been  injured  he  could  have 
recovered  nothing  from  the  hotel  proprietor,  for 
the  accident  would  have  been  directly  traceable  to 
his  own  stupid  want  of  ordinary  care  and  prudence.1 

i  Robinson  v.  Cove,  22  Vt.  213;  Butterfield  v.  Forrester,  11 
East,  GO;  Rathbun  v.  Payne,  19  Wend.  399. 


CITY    HOUSE    AND    MANNERS.  25 

At  the  dinner  table  we  found  that  many  of  the 
people,    notwithstanding    the    luxurious  surround' 
ings,  seemed  quite  oblivious  of  the  sage  advice  given 
by  Mistress  Hannah  Woollcy,  of  London,  in  the  year 
of  grace  1673.     That  worthy  says  in  her  "Gentle- 
woman's Companion  "  :    "  Do  not  eat  spoon-meat  so 
hot  that  tears  stand  in  your  eyes,  or  that  thereby  you 
betray  your  intolerable  greediness.     Do   not   bite 
your  bread,  but  cut  or  break  it;  and  keep  not  your 
knife  always  in  your  hand,  for  that  is  as  unseemly 
as  a  gentlewoman  who  pretended  to  have  as  little 
a  stomach  as  she  had  mouth,  and  therefore  would 
not  swallow  her  peas  by  spoonfuls,  but  took  them 
one  by  one  and  cut  them  in  two  before  she  would 
eat  them.     Fill  not  your  mouth  so  full  that  your 
cheeks  shall  swell  like  a  pair  of  Scotch  bag-pipes." 
One  of  the  company  near  by  ate  as  if  he  had 
never  eaten  in  any  place  save  a  shanty  all  the  days 
of  his  life;  he  was  not  quite  so  bad,  however,  as  the 
celebrated  Dr.  Johnson,  who,  Lord  Macaulay  tells 
us,  "  tore  his  dinner  like  a  famished  wolf,  with  the 
veins  swelling  in  his  forehead,  and  the  perspiration 
running  down  his  cheeks;"  but  yet,  in  dispatching 
his  food,  he  swallowed  two-thirds  of  his  knife   at 
every  mouthful  with  the  coolness  of  a  juggler. 

"Such  a  savage  as  that  ought  not  to  be  permitted 
to  take  his  meals  in  the  dining-room,"  said  my  wife. 
"I  am  not  sure  that  he  could  be  prevented  on  ac- 
count of  his  style  of  eating,"  I  replied,  as  the  man 
began  shoveling  peas  with  a  knife  into  his  mouth, 
which  could  not  have  been  broader  unless  Dame 
Nature  had  placed  his  auricular  appendages  an  inch 

3. 


20  CITY  HOUSE   AND   MANNERS. 

or  two  further  back.  (By  the  way,  how  did  they 
eat  peas  before  the  days  of  knives,  forks,  and 
spoons  ?) 

"  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  if  an  individual  makes 
himself  so  extremely  disagreeable  to  all  other  guests, 
the  proprietor  has  no  right  to  ask  him  to  leave?" 
queried  Mrs.  L. 

"  Well,  my  dear,  it  was  held  iu  Pennsylvania  that 
the  host  might  request  such  an  one  to  depart ;  and 
that  if  he  did  not,  the  hotel-keeper  might  lay  his 
hands  gently  upon  him  and  lead  him  out,  and  if  re- 
sistance was  made  might  use  sufficient  force  to  ae* 
complish  the  desired  end."1 

"Then  please  tell  that  waiter  to  take  that  man 
out,"  broke  in  my  wife. 

"  Not  so  fast,  my  dear ;  that  decision  was  reversed 
afterward,  and  it  was  said  to  be  assault  and  battery 
so  to  eject  a  guest.2  I  have  known  8600  damages 
given  to  a  guest  for  an  assault  on  him  by  his  land- 
lord.3 I  remember,  too,  a  case  where  a  man  rejoicing 
in  the  trisyllabic  name  of  Prendergast  was  coming 
from  Madras  to  London  round  the  Cape  of  Storms, 
having  paid  his  fare  as  a  cabin  passenger.  His  habit 
was  to  reach  across  others  at  table  to  help  himself, 
and  to  take  potatoes  and  broiled  bones  in  his  fingers, 
devouring  them  as  was  the  fashion  in  the  days  when 
Adam  delved  and  Eve  span,  if  they  had  such  things 
then.  The  captain,  offended  at  this  ungentlernanly 
conduct,  refused  to  treat  Master  P.  as  a  first-class 

1  Commonwealth  v.  Mitchell,  2  Pars.  Sel.  Cas.  431. 

2  Commonwealth  v.  Mitchell,  1  Phila.  63. 
8  Kelsey  v.  Henry,  49  III.  488. 


CITY  HOUSE   A>T>  MAITCfEBS.  27 

passenger,  excluded  him  from  the  cabin,  and  would 
not  allow  him  to  walk  on  the  weather  side  of  the 
ship.  On  reaching  England,  Prendergast  sued  the 
captain  for  the  breach  of  his  agreement  to  carry 
him  as  a  cuddy  passenger ;  the  officer  pleaded  that 
the  conduct  of  the  man  had  been  vulgar,  offensive, 
indecorous  and  unbecoming,  but  the  son  of  Nep- 
tune was  mulcted  in  damages  to  the  tune  of  £25, 
Chief  Justice  Tindal  observing  that  it  would  be 
difficult  to  say  what  degree  of  want  of  polish  would, 
in  point  of  law,  warrant  a  captain  in  excluding  one 
from  the  cuddy.  Conduct  unbecoming  a  gentleman 
in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word  might  possibly  justify 
him,  but  in  this  case  there  was  no  imputation  of  the 
want  of  gentlemanly  principles.1  But  here,  at  last, 
comes  our  dinner ;  let  us  show  our  neighbors  how 
to  handle  knife  and  fork  aright." 

And  a  very  good  dinner  it  was,  too,  although 
dished  by  a  cook  who  had  not  the  talents  of  the 
ancient  knights  of  the  kitchen  who  could  dexter- 
ously serve  up  a  sucking-pig  boiled  on  one  side  and 
roasted  on  the  other,  or  make  so  true  a  fish  out  of 
turnips  as  to  deceive  sight,  taste,  and  smell.  These 
antique  masters  of  the  gastronomic  art  knew  how 
to  suit  each  dish  to  the  need  and  necessity  of  each 
guest.  They  held  to  the  doctrine  that  the  more  the 
nourishment  of  the  body  is  subtilized  and  alembi- 
cated, the  more  will  the  qualities  of  the  mind  be 
rarefied  and  quintessenced,  too.  For  a  young  man 
destined  to  live  in  the  atmosphere  of  a  royal  court, 
whipped  cream  and  calves'  trotters  were  supplied 

1  Prendergast  v.  Compton,  8  Car.  &  P.  454. 


28  crrr  HOUSE  AXD 

by  them ;  for  a  sprig  of  fashion,  linnets'  heads, 
essence  of  May  beetles,  butterfly  broth,  and  other 
light  trifles ;  for  a  lawyer  destined  to  the  chicanery 
of  his  profession  and  for  the  glories  of  the  bai*, 
sauces  of  mustard  and  vinegar  and  other  condi- 
ments  of  a  bitter  and  pungent  nature  Avould  be 
carefully  rrovided.1  As  Lord  Guloseton  says,  "  The 
ancients  seem  to  have  been  more  mental,  more 
imaginative,  than  we  in  their  dishes  ;  they  fed  their 
bodies,  as  well  as  their  minds,  upon  delusion  :  for 
instance,  they  esteemed  beyond  all  price  the  tongues 
of  nightingales,  because  they  tasted  the  very  music 
of  the  birds  in  the  organ  of  their  utterance.  That 
is  the  poetry  of  gastronomy." 

I  noticed  at  a  table  near  by  a  merry  party.  I 
afterward  learned  that  it  was  composed  of  a  num- 
ber of  fast  young  men  from  the  city,  who  had  come 
in  to  have  a  good  dinner,  and  exhibit  themselves, 
their  garments,  and  their  graces  before  the  assem- 
bled guests  ;  and  that,  when  the  hour  of  reckoning 
came,  the  needful  wherewith  to  liquidate  the  little 
bill  was  not  forthcoming.  The  landlord  insisted 
that  each  one  was  liable  for  the  whole,  as  there  was 
no  special  agreement,  (and  this  would  generally  be 
the  case2)  and  that  one  who  was  solvent  should  pay 
the  reckoning  for  all ;  but,  unfortunately  for  Boni- 
face, his  clerk  had  been  told  beforehand  that  that 
moneyed  man  was  the  guest  of  the  others,  who 
were  all  as  poor  as  Job's  peahens ;  so  that  the  poor 
man  had  no  recourse  against  the  deadheads,  in  this 

1  Dons  de  Comus,  Paris,  1758. 

2  Foster  v.  Taylor,  3  Cainp.  N.  P.  49. 


CITY  HOUSE  AXD  MANNERS.  29 

direction,  at  all  events,1  and  even  the  moneyed  gent 
got  a  free  dinner.  The  worthies  swaggered  out, 
Binging  in  an  undertone  the  words  of  an  Ethiopian 
minstrel  appropriate  to  the  occasion. 

*  *  *  *  # 

As  my  wife  was  returning  to  her  room  after  din- 
ner, she  met  a  poor  woman,  whose  daily  walk  in  life 
was  from  the  wash-tub  to  the  clothes-line,  looking 
in  vain  for  some  miserable  sinner  who  had  departed 
leaving  his  laundry  bill  unpaid.  After  endeavoring 
in  vain  to  console  the  woman,  Mrs.  Lawyer,  (who 
had  a  Quixotic  way  of  interfering  in  other  people's 
troubles)  came  running  back  to  me  to  ask  if  the 
hotel-keeper  was  not  bound  to  pay  for  the  washing. 
I  told  her  of  course  not,  unless  he  had  been  in  the 
habit  of  paying  the  laundry  bills  of  guests  who  had 
left ;  then  an  undertaking  to  that  effect  might  be 
inferred,  and  it  might  be  considered  as  evidence  of 
an  antecedent  promise.2  With  this  small  crumb  of 
comfort,  my  wife  returned  to  the  user  of  soap  and 
destroyer  of  buttons. 

While  sitting,  a  la  Mr.  Briggs,  in  the  smoking- 
room,  "  with  my  waistcoat  unbuttoned,  to  give  that 
just  and  rational  liberty  to  the  subordinate  parts  of 
the  human  commonwealth  which  the  increase  of 
their  consequence  after  the  hour  of  dinner  naturally 
demands,"  and  gently, (as  good  Bishop  Hall  puts  it) 
"  whiffing  myself  away  in  nicotian  incense  to  the 
idol  of  my  intemperance,"  a  fellow-puffer  spoke  to 
me  about  the  excessive  charges  of  the  house. 

1  Foster  r.  Taylor,  3  Camp.  N.  P.  49. 

2  Collard  r.  White,  1  Starkie.  171. 


30  CITY  HOUSE   AND  MANNERS. 

I  told  him  that  in  the  good  old  days  of  yore,  and 
perchance  even  yet,  an  innkeeper  who  charged  ex- 
orbitant prices  might  be  indicted,  and  that  our 
ancestors  were  wont  to  have  the  rates  fixed  by  pub- 
lic proclamation.1 

He  then  remarked  that  he  would  not  mind  about 
the  prices,  if  the  landlord  had  allowed  him  to  do  a 
little  business  in  the  place. 

"  Your  right  to  lodge  and  be  fed  in  the  house 
gives  you  no  right  to  carry  on  trade  here,"2  I  re- 
plied. 

"  One  of  the  waiters  threatened  to  kick  me  yes- 
terday for  doing  business." 

"  Oh,  if  you  are  assaulted  by  any  of  the  servants, 
the  proprietor  is  liable  to  you  in  damages,  though 
he  was  not  himself  present  at  the  time,  or  even 
consenting  thereto,"3  I  returned.  Then,  fearing 
lest  I  might  be  nourishing  a  viper  in  the  shape  of 
a  book-agent,  or  vendor  of  patent  articles,  I  left  the 
room,  the  words  of  the  poet  running  through  my 
brain : 

"  Society  is  now  one  polished  horde, 
Formed  of  two  mighty  tribes — the  Bores  and  Bored." 


1  Bacon's  Abr.  Inns,  C. 

2  Ambler  v.  Skinner,  7  Hob.  (N.  Y.)561. 
s  Wade  v.  Thayer,  40  Cal.  578. 


CHAPTER   III. 
ACCIDENTS,  ROOMS,  DOGS. 

Next  morning,  as  we  were  arranging  whither  we 
would  wend  our  way,  I  proposed  taking  a  bus.  My 
wife  remarked  positively  that  she  wished  that  I 
would  not  use  that  vulgar  word.  I  returned : 

"Humph!  Did  you  ever  hear  the  story  about 
Lord  Campbell  and  the  omnibus?" 

"What  was  it?"  she  asked. 

"A  lawyer  while  arguing  before  him  continually 
spoke  of  a  certain  kind  of  carriage  as  '  a  brougham,' 
(pronouncing both  syllables)  whereupon  his  lordship, 
with  that  pomposity  for  which  he  was  rather  noted, 
remarked  that  'broom'  was  the  more  usual,  and  not 
incorrect,  pronunciation ;  that  such  pronunciation 
was  open  to  no  grave  objection,  and  had  the  great 
advantage  of  saving  the  time  consumed  by  uttering 
an  extra  syllable.  Shortly  afterward  Campbell 
spoke  of  an  '  omnibus.'  The  counsel  whom  he  had 
shortly  before  corrected,  jumped  up  with  such 
promptitude  that  the  judge  was  startled  into  silence, 
exclaiming:  'Pardon  me,  my  Lord,  the  carriage 
to  which  you  draw  attention  is  usually  called  '  a 
bus' :  that  pronunciation  is  open  to  no  grave  objec- 
tion, and  has  the  great  advantage  of  saving  the  time 
consumed  by  uttering  two  extra  syllables.'  You 
can  easily  draw  the  moral  from  that  little  tale,  my 
dear." 


32  ACCIDENTS,   ROOMS,   DOGS. 

Into  a  bus  we  got,  and  out  of  it  we  got,  in  course 
of  time.  We  went  up  and  down  and  in  and  out 
and  roundabout,  seeing  the  sights  and  doing  the 
town  like  many  another  couple  had  done  before  us, 
and  will  do  again  during  that  most  awkward  of 
seasons,  the  honeymoon. 

While  my  spouse  gazed  in  at  some  lovely  silks, 
sweet  feathers,  and  ducks  of  bonnets,  unmindful  of 
the  troubles  that  Moses  underwent  in  obtaining  the 
latter  part  of  the  Decalogue,  I  took  the  opportunity 
of  instilling  some  legal  doctrines  and  decisions  into 
her  head. 

"  Remember,"  I  said,  "  the  solemn  words  of  the 
poet: 

'  Man  wants  but  little  here  below, 
Nor  wants  that  little  long.'  " 

"  I  fear  that  a  woman  like  myself  will  have  to 
wait  very  long  before  she  gets  her  little  wants  sup- 
plied," she  saucily  interjected. 

"I  was  about  to  remark,"  I  sternly  continued, 
"  that  if  you  are  very  extravagant  in  your  wardrobe 
and  tastes,  I  will  not  be  liable  to  pay  all  your  little 
bills.  Once  upon  a  time  an  English  judge  decided 
that  a  milliner  could  not  make  a  husband  pay 
£5,287  for  bonnets,  laces,  feathers  and  ribbons  sup- 
plied to  his  dear  little  wife  during  a  few  months." * 

"No  power  on  earth  could  make  you  pay  that 
sum,  or  anything  like  it ;  so  don't  worry  yourself, 
my  darling,"  coolly  and  somewhat  sarcastically  re- 
marked Mrs.  Lawyer. 

"  Please  do  not  interrupt.     In  another  case  it  was 

1  Lane  v.  Ironmonger,  13  Mees.  &  W.  368. 


ACCIDENTS,   ROOMS,    DOGS.  33 

held  that  the  price  of  a,  sea-side  suit,  some  £67, 
could  not  be  collected  from  a  husband — a  poor  bar- 
rister— who  had  forbidden  his  Avife  to  go  to  the 
watering  place." l 

"  He  must  have  been  a  very  poor  lawyer  if  ho 
never  had  a  suit  that  cost  more  to  some  unfortunate 
client." 

"Again,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Butcher" 

"  I  like  that  name  for  a  parson,"  again  interposed 
my  wife.  "  It  suggests,  you  know,  a  slender  frame, 
a  pale  face,  taper  fingers." 

I  paid  no  heed,  but  went  on  :• 

"  Was  excused  payment  of  some  £900  for 

birds — loreees,  avadavats,  lovebirds,  quakers,  cut- 
throats— furnished  his  wife  during  the  short  space 
of  ten  months."  2 

"  But  I  will  not  be  as  extravagant  as  any  of  those 
misguided  ladies  were,"  remarked  my  Avife,  most 
sensibly. 

"  Well,  then,  there  Avill  be  no  trouble.  Every- 
thing necessary  I  will  of  course  pay  for  Avillingly, 
as  I  could  be  made  to  pay  for  them,  if  unAvilling. 
Even  a  piano,  perhaps,  I  Avill  stand ; 3  or  false 
teeth ; 4  but,  mind  you,  not  quack  medicines,5 
though  you  are  a  duck." 

"  I  am  glad  to  hear  '  that  you'll  vouchsafe  me 
raiment,  bed,  and  food '  ;  please  begin  UOAV  Avith 
the  last  named  necessary  article,  for  I  am  hungry." 
Mrs.  LaAvyer  \vas  a  practical  Avoman. 

1  Atkins  v.  Carwood,  7  Car.  &  P.  759. 

2  Freestone  v.  Butcher,  9  Car.  &  P.  043. 
a  Parke  v.  Kleeber,  37  Pa.  St.  251. 

4  Oilman  v.  Andrus,  28  Vt,  241. 
6  Wood  v.  Kelly,  8  Cush.  406. 


34  ACCIDENTS,    ROOMS,   DOGS. 

"I  presume  it  is  time  for  lunch,"  I  replied.  "Ah 
me!  I  wish  lawyers  in  this  nineteenth  century 
could  get  their  dinners  as  cheaply  as  they  could  in 
days  gone  by,  when  the  client  paid  therefor,  as 
appears  in  many  an  ancient  register.  The  clerk  of 
St.  Margaret's,  Westminster,  entered  on  his  books 
that  he  paid  to  Robert  Fylpott,  learned  in  the  law, 
for  his  counsel  given,  3s.  8d.,  with  6d.  for  his  dinner. 
Tempora  muta.ntur.  There's  a  restaurant.  Let 
us  enter." 

We  entered  accordingly,  and  a  very  good  lunch- 
eon we  had,  except  for  one  slight  contretemps. 
While  engaged  upon  my  macaroni  soup,  a  long, 
reddish  thread — as  I  surmised — revealed  itself  to 
my  vision.  Calling  the  waiter,  I  demanded  how 
it  came  there. 

"  Ah ! "  said  the  man,  quite  cheerfully,  "  I  can 
tell  you  where  that  came  from.  Our  cook's  in  love, 
sir,  and  is  constantly  opening  a  locket  containing  a 
lock  of  his  sweetheart's  hair.  Of  course,  some  of  it 
occasionally  falls  into  the  dishes." 

"  Disgusting !  "  said  my  wife. 

"  Beastly !  "  said  I. 

The  waiter  calmly  continued :  "  Beg  pardon,  sir, 
but  would  you  mind  giving  me  the  hair  ?  You  see, 
the  cook  is  so  fond  of  her  that  he  is  quite  pleased 
when  I  bring  him  back  a  stray  hair  or  two." 

Of  course,  I  knew  that  accidents  will,  etc. ;  and 
everything  else  was  very  good.  My  wife,  however, 
wasted  a  good  deal  of  time  in  listening  in  wonder- 
ing amazement  to  the  calculations  made  at  an  ad- 
joining table. 


ACCIDENTS,    BOOMS,    DOGS.  35 

"  I  don't  see  how  a  waiter  can  remember  such  a 
long  list  of  things,  and  tell  what  they  all  come  to 
BO  rapidly  ;  or  how  any  two  men  could  eat  as  much 
as  those  two  did,"  she  remarked  to  me. 

"  Pshaw ! "  I  replied,  "  that  is  nothing  to  Mr. 
Smallweed's  arithmetical  powers,  or  to  the  gastro- 
nomic achievements  of  himself  and  his  friends." 

"And  pray  what  did  Mr.  S.  do?"  asked  my  wife. 

"  Why,  when  their  little  luncheon  was  over,  and 
he  was  asked  by  the  pretty  waitress  what  they  had 
hud,  he  replied,  without  a  moment's  hesitation  : 
'  Four  veals  and  hams  is  3  and  4  potatoes  is  3  and 
4  and  one  summer  cabbage  is  3  and  6  and  3  mar- 
rows is  4  and  6  and  6  breads  is  5  and  3  Cheshires 
is  5  and  3  and  4  pints  of  half-and-half  is  6  and  3 
and  4  small  rums  is  8  and  3  and  3  Pollys  is  8  and 
6  and  8  and  6  in  half  a  sovereign,  Polly,  and 
18  pence  out.' " 

When  we  rose  to  leave  the  room,  we  found  that 
some  one  had  left  before  us  with  Mrs.  Lawyer's  new 
umbrella.  Silently  I  quitted  the  place,  for  I  knew 
that  it  had  been  decided  that  a  restaurant  is  not  an 
inn,  so  as  to  charge  the  proprietor  with  the  liabili- 
ties of  an  innkeeper  toward  transient  persons  who 
take  their  meuls  there  ;  (and  the  same  rule  applies 
even  though  he  does  in  fact  keep  in  the  same  build- 
ing an  hotel,  to  which  the  eating-house  is  attached ; *) 
and  therefore  it  would  be  useless  to  expect  the  pro- 
prietor to  make  good  the  loss.  Nor  is  a  refresh- 
ment bar  (where  persons  casually  passing  by  receive 
the  good  things  of  this  life  at  a  counter)  an  inn, 

1  Carpenter  v.  Taylor,  1  Hilt.  (X.  Y.)  193. 


36  ACCIDESTTS,    ROOMS,    DOGS. 

although  it  is  connected  with  an  hotel,  and  kept 
under  the  same  license,  but  entered  by  a  separate 
door  from  the  street.1  Where,  however,  a  servant 
once  asked  permission  to  leave  a  parcel  at  a  tavern, 
and  the  landlady  refused  to  receive  it ;  the  man, 
being  a  thirsty  soul,  called  for  something  to  drink, 
putting  the  parcel  on  the  floor  behind  him  while 
imbibing,  and  while  thus  the  spirit  was  descending 
more  rapidly  than  it  ever  did  in  the  most  sensitive 
thermometer,  the  package  disappeared,  and  never 
was  seen  again  by  the  owner ;  yet  the  innkeeper 
was  held  responsible  for  the  loss.2 

An  umbrella  was  bought  and  money  expended 
for  divers  little  odds  and  ends  before  we  went  back 
to  the  hotel  for  dinner.  On  our  return,  Mr.  Dead- 
head and  his  wife  entered  the  hotel  just  before  us. 
They  were  country  cousins  of  the  proprietor's,  and 
had  been  asked  to  dinner,  or  had  come  without  an 
invitation.  As  he  was  opening  an  inside  door  a 
large  pane  of  glass  fell  out  of  it,  and,  slightly  graz- 
ing his  hand,  shivered  into  a  thousand  pieces  on  the 
marble  floor.  I  told  him  to  rejoice  that  he  had  been 
fortunate  enough  to  escape  with  the  loss  of  but  a 
drop  or  two  of  his  vital  fluid ;  for  I  remembered 
distinctly  a  similar  accident  happening  to  my  fath- 
cr'a  old  friend,  Southcote,  in  England,  years  ago ; 
and  although  he  sued  the  proprietor  of  the  house, 
alleging  that  he  (the  landlord)  was  possessed  of  an 
hotel,  into  which  he  had  invited  S.  as  a  visitor,  and 

1  Regina  v.  Eymer,  L.  R.  2  Q.  B.  D.  136. 

2  Bennett  v.  Mellor,  5  T.  E.  276.    See,  also,  Houser  v.  Tully, 
62  Pa.  St.  92. 


ACCIDENTS,  ROOMS,  DOGS.  37 

in  which  there  was  a  glass  door  which  it  was 
necessary  for  him  (S.)  to  open  for  the  purpose  of 
leaving,  and  which  he,  by  the  permission  of  the 
owner,  and  with  his  knowledge,  and  without  any 
warning  from  him,  lawfully  opened,  for  the  purpose 
aforesaid,  as  a  door  which  was  in  a  proper  condi- 
tion to  be  opened,  yet,  by  and  through  the  cai-eless- 
ness,  negligence,  and  default  of  defendant,  the  door 
was  then  in  an  insecure  and  dangerous  condition, 
and  unfit  to  be  opened  ;  and,  by  reason  of  said  door 
being  in  such  insecure  and  dangerous  condition,  and 
of  the  then  carelessness,  negligence,  default,  and 
improper  conduct  of  the  defendant  in  that  behalf,  a 
large  piece  of  glass  fell  from  the  door,  and  wounded 
Southcote — yet,  although  he  said  all  this,  the  Court 
of  Exchequer,  with  Pollock,  C.  B ,  at  its  head,  de- 
cided that  no  cause  of  action  against  the  proprietor 
was  disclosed.1  It  was  considered  that  a  visitor  in 
a  house  was  in  the  same  position  as  any  other  mem- 
ber of  the  establishment,  so  far  as  regards  the  negli- 
gence of  the  master  or  his  servants,  and  must  take 
his  chance  of  accidents  with  the  rest.2  Baron 
Lramwell,  however,  well  said  that  where  a  person 
is  in  the  house  of  another,  either  on  business  or  for 
any  other  lawful  purpose,  he  has  a  right  to  expect 
that  the  owner  will  take  reasonable  care  to  protect 
him  from  injury,  and  will  not  leave  trap-doors 
open  down  which  he  might  fall,  or  take  him  into  a 
garden  among  spring-guns  and  man-traps.3 

At  dinner — to  which,  in  addition  to  the  various 

iSoutlicote  v.  Stanley,  1  Hurl.  &  N.  247.    2Per  Pollock,  B.  C. 

a  Ibid. 
4. 


38  ACCIDENTS,   ROOMS,   DOGS. 

condiments  provided  by  mine  host,  we  ourselves 
brought  that  best  of  sauces,  hunger — there  was  seat- 
ed at  a  neighboring  table  Mrs.  Deadhead,  a  friend 

O  O  ' 

of  the  proprietor's,  as  I  have  said,  a  lady  of  con- 
siderable amplitude  of  person,  and  extensively  be- 
decked with  the  diamonds  of  Golconda,  the  gold 
of  Australia,  the  lace  of  Lyons,  the  feathers  of 
South  Africa,  the  millinery  of  N"ew  York,  and 
attired  in  a  silk  dress  of  most  fashionable  shape, 
color,  and  make.  As  a  waiter  was  helping  this  veiy 
conspicuous  member  of  society  to  a  plate  of  soup, 
he  caught  his  foot  in  the  extensive  train,  stumbled, 
and  placed  the  soup  in  her  ladyship's  lap — minus 
the  plate.  Great  was  the  commotion,  loud  the  re- 
proaches, abject  the  apologies. 

My  wife  thereupon  whispered  to  me  that  the 
upset  would  not  have  mattered  much  if  the  soup 
was  any  like  hers. 

"Why  not?"  I  queried,  in  some  surprise,  and 
anxious  to  learn  as  speedily  as  possible  the  chemi- 
cal peculiarities  of  a  lady's  toilet. 

"  Because  then  the  dress  would  have  been  turned 
into  a  watered  silk,"  was  the  only  answer  I  got. 

It  was  some  time  before  I  saw  the  point,  and 
then  I  smiled  a  dreary,  weary  smile,  and  remarked 
that  I  hoped  the  lady  was  able  to  re-dress  herself, 
for  I  thought  that  she  could  get  no  redress  from 
the  proprietor — at  least,  that  legal  luminary,  Pol- 
lock, C.  B.,  so  insinuated  on  one  occasion.1 

My  wife  grew  fidgety  because  the  waiters  were 
somewhat  tardy  in  filling  her  ordei's. 

1  Southcote  v.  Stanley,  supra. 


ACCIDENTS,   BOOMS,    DOGS.  39 

"  Look,"  she  said,  "  at  those  lazy  fellows  !  Half  a 
dozen  of  them  doing  nothing,  while  we  are  kept 
waiting,  still  waiting." 

"Doubtless,1' I  replied,  "  they  have  been  deeply 
impressed  with  the  truth  of  that  grand  old  Miltonic 
line: 

'  They  also  serve  who  only  stand  to  wait.'  " 


While  taking  my  post-prandial  smoke,  my  inter- 
rogator of  the  previous  evening  again  approached 
me,  and  asked,  in  a  grumbling  voice,  if  the  landlord 
had  a  right  to  turn  him  out  of  one  room,  and  put 
him  into  another. 

"  Oh,  yes,"  I  replied ;  "  he  has  the  sole  right  of  se- 
lecting the  apartment  for  each  guest,  and,  if  he  finds 
it  expedient,  may  change  the  room  and  assign  his 
patron  another.  There  is  no  implied  contract  that 
one  to  whom  a  particular  room  has  been  given  shall 
retain  it  so  long  as  he  chooses  to  pay  for  it.1  You 
pay  your  money,  but  you  don't  take  your  choice." 

"  But  I  liked  the  room  so  much,"  said  Mr.  Com- 
plaining Grumbler. 

"  It  matters  not.  The  proprietor  is  not  bound  to 
comply  with  your  caprices.2  When  you  go  to  an 
hotel  you  have  only  a  mere  easement  of  sleeping  in 
one  room,  and  eating  and  drinking  in  another,  as 
Judge  Maule  once  remarked."  3 

"Can  he  turn  me  out  of  the  house  altogether?" 

"Certainly  not,  if  you  behave  yourself;  unless, 

i  Doyle  v.  Walker,  26  Q.  B.  (Ont.)  502. 
a  Fell  i:  Kuislit,  8  Mees.  &  W.  276. 
3 Lane  v.  Dixon,  3  M.  G.  &  S.  784. 


40 

indeed,  you  neglect  or  refuse  to  pay  your  bill  upon 
reasonable  demand."  r 

''•  I  am  going  away  by  the  night  train,"  said  Mr. 
C.  G.,  "  and  I  did  not  wish  to  go  to  bed ;  so  he 
insisted  upon  taking  my  room,  and  told  me  I  might 
stay  in  the  parlor  until  I  left." 

"And  quite  right,  too.  Although  he  cannot  make 
you  go  to  bed,  or  turn  you  out  of  doors  because  you 
do  not  choose  to  sleep,  still  you  cannot  insist  upon 
having  a  bed-room  in  which  to  sit  up  all  night,  if 
you  are  furnished  with  another  room  proper  for 
that  purpose."  2 

"  I  intend  returning  in  the  afternoon ;  can  he 
refuse  to  take  care  of  my  traps  while  I  am  ab- 
sent?" 

"  I  fancy  not,  for  a  temporary  absence  does  not 
affect  the  rights  of  a  guest.3  Long  since,  it  was 
laid  down  as  law  that  if  one  comes  to  an  inn  with 
a  hamper,  in  which  he  has  goods,  and  goes  away, 
leaving  it  with  the  host,  and  in  a  few  days  comes 
back,  but  in  the  meantime  his  goods  are  stolen,  he 
has  no  action  against  the  host,  for  at  the  time  of 
stealing  he  was  not  his  guest,  and  by  keeping  the 
hamper  the  innkeeper  had  no  benefit,  and  therefore 
is  not  chargeable  with  the  loss  of  it.  But  it  Avould 
be  otherwise  if  the  man  is  absent  but  from  morn  to 
dewy  eve;4  and  where,  in  New  York  State,  a 
guest,  after  spending  a  few  days  at  an  hotel,  gave 
up  his  room,  left  his  valise — taking  a  check  for  it — 

1  Doyle  v.  Walker,  supra. 

2  Fell  v.  Knight,  8  Mees.  &  W.  276. 

3  McDonald  v.  Edgerton,  5  ftarb.  (N.  Y.)  5GO. 

4  Bacon's  Abr.  Inns,  C;  Gelley  v.  Clark,  Cro.  J.  188. 


ACCIDEOTS,    ROOMS,    DOGS.  41 

and  was  gone  eight  clays,  without  paying  his  bill; 
on  returning,  he  registered  his  name,  took  a  room, 
and  called  for  his  bag,  when  another  appeared  in 
its  place,  having  the  duplicate  check  attached  :  the 
Court  of  Common  Pleas  held  that,  whether  the  case 
was  considered  as  an  ordinary  bailment,  or  as  prop- 
erty in  an  innkeepers'  hands,  on  which  he  had  a 
lien,  he  was  bound  to  exercise  due  care  and  dili- 
gence, and  that  he  must  account  for  the  loss,  the 
changing  of  the  check  being  evidence  of  negli- 
gence." ! 

I  rose  to  leave  the  room,  for  I  was  growing 
weary  of  this  catechetical  performance;  but  my 
questioner's  budget  was  not  yet  exhausted,  and,  as 
I  made  my  exit,  I  heard  him  say  : 

"  Pardon  me — one  inquiry  more  :  I  was  at  the  St. 
Nicholas  last  week  when  it  was  burnt  down,  and  I 
lost  some  of  my  clothes.  Is  the  owner  liable  to 
make  good  the  damage  sustained  ?  "  2 

I  heeded  not,  and  went  to  seek  my  wife.  After 
some  search  through  the  magnificent  drawing- 
rooms  of  our  sumptuous  hotel,  I  at  length  found 
her  in  an  elegant  parlor,  seated  at  a  piano,  and  gen- 
tly playing  some  sweet  melodies.  As  I  approached, 
she  motioned  me  to  be  cautious.  When  I  reached 
her,  I  saw  that  a  large  spider  was  stationed  at  the 
edge  of  the  piano  cover,  apparently  drinking  in 
the  harmony  of  sweet  sounds  to  the  utmost  extent 
of  his  arachnidian  nature.  My  advent  broke  the 
spell,  and  away  the  little  hairy  darkey  rushed, 

1  Murray  v.  Clarke,  2  Daly,  (N.  Y.)  102. 

2  For  answer,  see  page  103. 


42  ACCIDENTS,   ROOMS,    DOGS. 

hand  over  hand,  up  his  tiny  cable  of  four  thousand 
twisted  strands,  till  he  was  safe  in  the  cornice  of 
the  ceiling.  My  wife  was  charmed  at  her  novel 
listener,  and  exclaimed :  "  Did  you  ever  see  such  a 
thin-?" 

"  No,  but  I  have  read  of  it,"  I  replied.  "  Michelet, 
in  his  charming  book  on  '  The  Insect,'  tells  that 
a  little  musical  prodigy,  who  at  eight  astounded 
and  stupefied  his  hearers  by  his  mastery  of  the  vio- 
lin, was  forced  to  practice  long  weary  hours  in  soli- 
tude. There  was  a  spider,  however,  in  the  room, 
which,  entranced  by  the  melodious  strains,  grew 
more  and  more  familiar,  until  at  length  it  would 
climb  upon  the  mobile  arm  that  held  the  bow.  Lit- 
tle Berthome  needed  no  other  listener  to  kindle  his 
enthusiasm.  But  a  cruel  step-mother  appeared  on 
the  scene  suddenly  one  day,  and  with  a  single  blow 
of  her  slipper  annihilated  the  octopedal  audience. 
The  child  fell  to  the  ground  in  a  deathlike  faint, 
and  in  three  months  was  a  corpse — dead  from  a 
broken  heart." 

"  How  sad  ! "  said  Mrs.  Lawyer,  in  husky  tones, 
as  she  blew  her  nose  in  a  suspicious  manner. 

"  Then  there  was  also  the  musical  spider  of  Pelli- 

son  " A  little  snarleyow  of  a  dog  here  rushed 

in  and  barked  so  vigorously  and  furiously  that  my 
wife  never  heard  more  of  that  spider.  I  tried  to 
turn  the  wretched  creature  out,  but  a  puppy  fol- 
lowing— the  owner — requested  me  to  leave  it  alone. 
I  must  say  that  I  heartily  concur  with  Mr.  Justice 
Manisty  (and  I  sincerely  trust  that  my  concurrence 
will  afford  encouragement  to  the  learned  gentleman 


ACCIDENTS,    ROOMS,    DOGS.  43 

in  his  arduous  office)  in  holding  that  a  guest  cannot, 
under  any  circumstances,  insist  upon  bringing  a  dog 
into  any  room  in  a  hotel  where  other  guests  are. 
On  the  same  occasion  on  which  Judge  Manisty  ex- 
pressed his  views,  Kelly,  C.  B.,  remarked  that  he 
would  not  lay  down  the  rule  positively  that  under 
no  circumstances  would  a  guest  have  a  right  to 
bring  a  dog  into  an  inn ;  there  might  possibly,  he 
observed,  b  •  circumstances  in  which,  if  a  person 
came  to  an  inn  with  a  dog,  and  the  innkeeper  re- 
fused to  put  up  the  animal  in  any  stable  or  out- 
building, and  there  was  nothing  that  could  make 
the  canine  a  cause  of  alarm  or  an  annoyance  to  oth- 
ers, its  owner  might  be  justified  in  bringing  it  into 
the  house.  His  lordship,  however,  considered  that 
a  landlord  had  a  right  to  refuse  to  provide  for  the 
wants  of  a  visitor  who  insisted  upon  coming  with 
two  very  large  St.  Bernard  mastiffs,  one  a  fierce 
creature,  that  had  to  be  muzzled,  the  other  a  dog 
of  a  gentler  nature,  but  somewhat  given  to  that 
bad  habit  referred  to  in  those  Proverbs  of  Solomon 
which  the  men  of  Hezekiah,  king  of  Judah,  copied 
out,  and  by  the  apostle  St.  Peter  in  his  second 
epistle.1 

*  *  *  *  * 

The  next  day  there  was  a  gentle  ripple  of  excite- 
ment pervading  the  house.  Two  cases  of  larceny 
came  to  light,  and  made  the  guests  communicative 
and  talkative. 

In  one  case  a  Mr.  Blank,  his  wife,  and  amiable 
and  accomplished  daughter,  (I  can  vouch  for  the 

lEegina  v.  Eymer,  L.  R.  2Q.  B.  D.  141. 


44  ACCIDENTS,   ROOMS,   DOGS. 

correctness  of  these  adjectives ;  for  I  had  a  very 
pleasant  chat — to  call  it  by  a  mild  name — with  her 
one  day,  while  Mrs.  Lawyer  was  lying  down  after 
dinner)  had  a  sitting-room  and  bedroom  en  suite, 
so  arranged  that  when  the  sitting-room  door  was 
open  one  could  see  the  entrances  into  both  bed- 
rooms. Mrs.  B.,  being  in  her  room,  laid  upon  the 
bed  her  reticule,  in  which  was  a  by  no  means  des- 
picable sum  of  money.  She  then  rejoined  her  spouse 
and  daughter  in  the  sitting-room,  leaving  the  door 
between  the  two  apartments  open.  Some  five 
minutes  after,  she  sent  Miss  Blank — who  was  not 
too  proud  to  run  a  short  errand  for  her  kind  mam- 
ma— for  the  bag;  but  lo !  it  was  gone,  and  was 
never  again  found  by  a  member  of  the  Blank  fam- 
ily; for 

"  In  vain  they  searched  each  cranny  of  the  house, 
Each  gaping  chink  impervious  to  a  mouse." 

The  other  robbery  was  of  the  goods  of  a  young 
Englishman,  who,  the  previous  evening,  had  been 
boastfully  exhibiting  some  sovereigns  in  the  smok- 
ing-room. When  he  went  to  bed  he  had  placed 
his  watch  and  money  on  a  table  in  his  room,  left 
his  door  open,  and,  on  morning  dawning,  was  sur- 
prised to  find  his  time-piece  and  cash  vanished  with 
the  early  dew.  Other  people  would  have  been 
surprised  if  they  had  remained. 

I  fell  into  conversation  on  the  subject  of  these 
depredations  with  a  gentleman  whom  I  afterward 
discovered  to  be  a  member  of  Lincoln's  Inn,  a  place 
which  bears  very  little  resemblance  to  our  American 
hotels. 


ACCIDENTS,   BOOMS,   DOGS.  45 

"  'Tis  very  strange,"  said  Mr.  Learned  Inthelaw, 
"how  history  repeats  itself,  even  in  insignificant 
matters." 

I  bowed,  and  remarked  :  "A  very  sensible  man 
once  observed  that  there  was  nothing  new  under 
the  sun." 

"He  did  not  live,  however,  in  this  our  nineteenth 
century,"  was  the  reply.  "  But  what  I  was  going 
to  say  was  that  there  are  two  cases  reported  in  our 
English  law-books  exactly  similar  to  the  two  occur- 
rences of  to-day." 

"That  is  singular.     What  were  the  decisions?" 

"  In  the  reticule  case,1  the  hotel-keeper  was  held 
responsible  for  the  loss;  in  the  other,2  it  was  con- 
sidered that  the  guest  had  been  guilty  of  negligence 
so  as  to  absolve  the  host.  You  know  that  with  us 
it  was  decided,  about  the  time  that  Columbus  was 
discovering  America,  that  an  innkeeper  is  liable 
for  the  goods  of  his  guests  if  damaged  or  stolen 
while  under  his  care  as  an  innkeeper;3  and  in  such 
cases  he  is  not  freed  from  his  grave  responsibility 
by  showing  that  neither  himself  nor  his  servants 
are  to  blame,  but  in  every  event  he  is  liable  unless 
the  loss  or  injury  is  caused  by  the  act  of  God,  or  the 
queen's  enemies,  or  the  fault,  direct  or  implied,  of 
the  guest 4 — and  that  even  though  the  poor  man  has 
not  only  not  been  negligent,  but  has  even  been  dili- 
gent in  his  efforts  to  save  the  property  of  his  guest."  5 

1  Kent «.  Shuckard,  2  Barn.  &  Adol.  803. 

2  Casliill  v.  Wright,  (5  El.  &  B.  89. 

3  Year  Book,  10  Henry  VII,  26. 

*  Morgan  v.  Ravey,  G  Hurl.  &  N.  2(53. 

*  Ibid. 


46  ACCIDENT3,   ROOMS,    DOGS. 

"The  rule  is  the  same  with  us,"i  I  replied,  "  and 
it  extends  to  all  personal  property  the  guest  brings 
with  him,  whatever  may  be  the  value  or  the  k'uul.2 
And  if  the  proprietor  happens  to  be  absent  he  is  still 
liable  for  the  conduct  of  those  he  has  left  in  charge .3 
Innkeepers,  as  well  as  common  carriers,  are  re- 
garded as  insurers  of  the  property  committed  to 
their  care.  The  law  rests  on  the  same  principles 
of  policy  here  as  in  England  and  other  countries, 
and  is  wise  and  reasonable."  4 

"  But  it  seems  very  severe  upon  innkeepers,"  re- 
marked a  by-stander. 

"  Rigorous  r.s  the  law  may  seem,  my  dear  sir," 
replied  my  friend  of  Lincoln's  Inn,  "  and  hard,  as  it 
may  actually  be  in  one  or  two  particular  instances, 
yet  it  is  founded  on  the  great  principle  of  public 
utility  to  which  all  private  considerations  ought  to 
yield;  for  travelers,  who  must  be  numerous  in  a 
rich  and  commercial  country,  arc  obliged  to  rely 
almost  implicitly  on  the  good  faith  of  innkeepers, 
whose  education  and  morals  are  often  none  of  the 
best,  and  who  might  have  frequent  opportunities 
for  associating  with  ruffians  and  pilferers;  while  the 
injured  guest  could  seldom  or  never  obtain  legal 
proof  of  such  combinations,  or  even  of  their  negli- 
gence, if  no  actual  fraud  had  been  committed  by 
them."5 

"  What  did  the  old  Roman  law  say  on  the  sub- 

1  Shaw  v.  Berry,  31  Me.  478;  Sibley  v.  Aldrich,  33  N.  H.  553. 

2  Kellogg  v.  Sweeney,  1  Lans.  (X.  Y.)  397. 

3  Rockwell  v.  Proctor,  39  Ga.  105. 

4  Wilde,  J.,  Mason  r.  Thompson,  i)  Pick.  280. 

5  Jones  on  Bailments,  pp.  <J5-9(>. 


ACCIDENTS,    ROOMS,    DOGS.  47 

ject?"  inquired  old  Dr.  Dryasdust,  who  considered 
that  nothing  done  or  said  on  the  hither  side  of  the 
Middle  Ages  was  worthy  of  consideration. 

"  They,  sir,  were  equally  anxious  to  protect  the 
public  against  dishonest  publicans,  and  by  their 
edicts  gave  an  action  against  them  if  the  goods  of 
travelers  were  lost  or  hurt  by  any  means  except 
damno  fatali,  or  by  inevitable  accident ;  and  even 
then  Ulpian  intimates  that  innkeepers  were  not  al- 
together restrained  from  knavish  practices  or  sus- 
picious neglect."  A 

"  Still,"  said  the  by-stander  aforesaid,  "  I  do  not 
see  how  the  reticule  can  be  considered  to  have  been 
under  our  landlord's  care." 

"  To  render  him  liable  it  is  not  necessary  that  the 
goods  be  placed  in  his  special  keeping,  or  brought 
to  his  special  notice.  If  they  be  in  the  inn,  brought 
there  in  an  ordinary  and  reasonable  way  by  a  guest, 
it  is  sufficient  to  charge  the  proprietor."  2 

"Yes,"  I  chimed  in,  "and  it  does  not  matter  in 
what  part  of  the  hotel  the  goods  are  kept,  whether 
'  up-stairs,  or  down-stairs,  or  in  the  lady's  chamber' : 
while  they  are  anywhere  within  it,  they  are  under 
the  care  of  Boniface,  and  he  is  responsible  for  their 
safe  custody.  He  is  equally  liable,  whether  bag- 
gage is  put  in  a  bedroom,  a  horse  handed  over  to 
the  care  of  the  hostler,3  or  goods  placed  in  an  out- 

1  AVharton  on  Innkeepers,  p.  88. 

2Cayle's  Case;  Packard  v.  Northcraft,  2  Met.  (Ky.)  439; 
Norcross  v.  Norcross,  53  Me.  163 ;  Burrows  v.  Truber,  21  Md. 
320;  McDonald  v.  Edgerton,  5  Barb.  560;  Coykeudall  v.  Ea- 
ton, 55  Barb.  188. 

3  Hallenbake  v.  Fish,  8  Wend.  547. 


48  ACCIDENTS,    ROOMS,    DOGS. 

house  belonging  to  the  establishment  and  used  for 
that  sort  of  articles.i  My  friend  Epps.  on  one  oc- 
casion, went  to  an  inn  down  in  Mississippi,  and  had 
his  trunk  taken  to  his  bedroom,  and  it  being  broken 
into  at  night  and  the  money  purloined,  the  innkeeper 
was  held  liable."  2 

"  A  friend  of  mine,"  said  the  English  gent,  "  who 
was  in  the  employ  of  a  sweet  fellow  of  the  name  of 
Candy,  on  arriving  at  an  inn  gave  his  luggage  to 
Boots,  who  placed  one  package  in  the  hall ;  after- 
wards the  servant  wished  to  carry  it  into  the  com- 
mercial room,  but  the  owner  requested  him  to  leave 
it  where  it  was;  the  parcel  mysteriously  disappear- 
ed, and  the  innkeeper  had  the  pleasure  of  paying 
for  it."  3 

"In  fact,  I  believe  an  innkeeper  cannot  make  his 
guest  take  care  of  his  own  goods ; 4  nor  is  a  traveler 
bound  to  deposit  his  valuables  in  the  hotel  safe, 
even  though  he  may  know  that  there  is  one  kept 
for  the  reception  of  such  articles,  and  there  is  a 
regulation  of  the  house  requiring  articles  of  value 
to  be  so  deposited,"  5  I  remarked. 

"Are  you  not  stating  that  rather  broadly?" 
questioned  my  legal  confrere. 

"  No  Vatican  Council  has  proclaimed  me  infalli- 
ble. I  know  full  well  that  when  the  poet  said  '  to 
err  is  human,'  he  spoke  truth.  Of  course,  I  am 

1  Chute  v.  Wiggins.  14  Johns.  175. 

2  Epps  v.  Hinds,  27  Miss.  057;  Simon  v.  Miller,  7  La.  An.  368. 
8  Candy  v.  Spencer,  3  Fost.  &  P.  306. 

4  Bennett  v.  Mellor,  5  Term.  Rep.  273. 

e  Johnson  v.  Kichardson,  17  111.  302;  Piper  v.  Hall,  14  La. 
An.  324;  Profilet  v.  Hall,  Ibid.  524. 


ACCIDENTS,   ROOMS,   DOGS.  49 

speaking  only  of  the  rule  in  States  in  which  there 
is  no  special  law  or  statute  on  the  point,  limiting 
the  liability  of  publicans,"  I  replied. 

"I  think,  however,"  said  Mr.  Inthelaw,  the 
Englishman,  "that  it  has  been  held  that  the  inn- 
keeper may  refuse  to  be  responsible  for  the  safe 
custody  of  the  guest's  goods  unless  they  arc  put  in 
a  certain  place,  and  if  the  guest  objects  to  this,  the 
host  will  be  exonerated  in  case  of  loss.1  And  a 
guest  who  has  actual  notice  of  a  regulation  of  the 
inn  as  to  the  deposit  of  valuables,  and  has  not  com- 
plied with  it,  takes  the  risk  of  loss  happening  from 
any  cause,  except,  of  course,  the  actual  sins  of 
omission  and  commission  of  the  landlord  or  his 
servants."  2 

"  And  very  reasonably,"  remarked  a  by-stander. 

"  But  clear  and  unmistakable  notice  of  these  reg- 
ulations restricting  the  publican's  liability  must  cer- 
tainly be  given,"3  I  asserted.  "And,"  I  continued, 
"I  believe  a  distinction  has  been  taken,and  it  appears 
to  rest  upon  good  reason,  between  those  effects  of  a 
traveler  not  immediately  requisite  to  his  comfort, 
and  those  essential  to  his  personal  convenience,  and 
which  it  is  necessary  that  he  should  have  constantly 
about  him;  so  that,  though  personally  notified,  he 
is  not  bound  to  deposit  the  latter  with  the  innkeeper. 

1  Saunders  v.  Spencer,  Dyer,  266a;  "Wilson  v.  Halpin,  30 
How.  Pr.  124;  Packard  v.  Northcraft,  2  Met.  (Ky.)439;  Fuller 
v.  Coats,  18  Ohio  St.  343. 

2  Stanton  v.  Leland,  4  E.  D.  Smith,  88;  Kellogg  v.  Sweeney, 
1  Lans.  N.  Y.  397. 

3  Van  Wyck  v.  Howard,  12  How.  Pr.  147. 


50  ACCIDENTS,   ROOMS,   DOGS. 

And,  perhaps,  this  distinction  will  explain  the  ap- 
parently contradictory  decisions." l 

"Doubtless  the  notice  must  be  clear.  Even  a 
printed  notification  is  not  sufficient.  It  must  be 
brought  home  to  the  mind  of  the  guest,  or  at  least 
to  his  knowledge,  before  he  enters  and  takes  pos- 
session of  his  room,  so  that,  if  he  does  not  like  the 
regulations,  he  may  go  elsewhere.2  In  one  case,  the 
register  was  headed  with  the  notice,  '  Money  and 
valuables,  it  is  agreed,  shall  be  placed  in  the  safe 
in  the  office ;  otherwise,  the  proprietor  will  not  be 
liable  for  loss ' ;  and  Mr.  Bernstein  duly  entered  his 
name  in  the  book ;  still  he  was  not  held  bound  by 
the  notice,  as  there  was  no  proof  that  it  was  seen 
or.  assented  to  by  him."  3 

By-stander  here  remarked  :  "  My  father  kept  an 
inn  in  New  York  State,  and  once  told  a  man  of  the 
name  of  Purvis,  when  he  arrived  at  the  house,  that 
there  was  a  safe  for  valuables,  and  that  he  would 
not  be  responsible  for  his  unless  they  were  placed 
in  it.  Purvis,  however,  neglected  the  caution,  and 
left  $2,000  in  gold  in  a  trunk  in  his  bed-room,  locked 
the  door,  and  gave  the  key  to  my  father.  Some 
thief  broke  through  and  stole,  and  Purvis  tried  to 
make  the  old  gentleman  responsible  for  the  theft ; 
but  the  court  did  not  agree  with  him,  and  consid- 
ered that  he  alone  must  bear  the  loss."  4 

1  Profilet  v.  Hall,  16  La.  An.  524. 

2  Morgan  v.  Ravey,  30  L.  J.  Exch.  131,  per  Wilde,  B. ;  6 
Hurl.  &  N.  265. 

a  Bernstein  v.  Sweeny,  33  N.  Y.  Sup.  Ct.  271.  See,  also, 
Kent  v.  Midland  Rwy.  L.  R.  10  Q.  B.  1;  Henderson  v.  Stev- 
enson, L.  R.  2  Scotch  &  D.  470. 

4  Purvis  v.  Colemau.  21  X.  Y.  111. 


ACCIDENTS,    ROOMS,   DOGS.  61 

"  The  host  is  not  liable  for  the  loss  of  goods  if, 
at  the  time  of  their  disappearance,  they  were  in 
the  exclusive  possession  of  their  owner,1  and  it  will 
generally  be  left  to  an  intelligent  jury  to  say 
whether  or  not  the  articles  were  in  the  sole  custody 
of  the  guest,"  2  remarked  Mr.  Inthelaw. 

"  What  do  you  mean  ?  "  asked  one. 

"  For  instance,  where  a  Brummagem  man,  trav- 
eling for  orders,  came  to  an  inn  with  three  boxes 
of  goods ;  the  travelers'  room  did  not  meet  with 
his  approbation,  so  he  asked  for  another  one  up 
stairs,  where  he  might  display  his  wares.  The  lady 
of  the  house  gave  him  one  with  a  key  in  the  door, 
and  told  him  to  keep  it  locked.  The  boxes  were 
taken  to  ,tbe  new  apartment,  and  after  dining  in 
the  t:  -.'eiers'  room,  the  Brummagem  gent — who 
seemed  inclined  to  put  on  airs — took  his  precious 
self  into  the  new  room,  and  there  also  he  took  his 
wine.  After  his  repast,  he  exhibited  his  wares — 
chiefly  jewelry — to  a  customer,  and  in  the  cool  of 
the  evening  went  out  to  see  the  town,  leaving  the 
door  unlocked,  and  the  key  outside.  (So  the  reporter 
tells  us,  though  why  he  need  have  taken  the  trouble 
to  leave  the  door  unlocked  if  the  key  was  on  the 
outside,  or  the  key  outside  if  the  door  was  unlocked, 
I  cannot  understand.)  While  he  was  away,  two 
of  his  boxes  went  away,  too.  He  sued  the  proprie- 
tor of  the  house  for  damages,  but  got  nothing.  He 
applied  for  a  new  trial,  but  with  like  success.  Lord 

1Farnsworth  v.  Packwood,  1  Stark.  249;  Packard  v.  North- 
craft,  2  Met.  (Ky.)  439;  Vance  v.  Throckmorton,  5  Bush, 
(Ky.)41. 

2  Farnsworth  v.  Packwood,  supra. 


C2  ACCIDENTS,    ROOMS,    DOGS. 

Ellenborough  remarked  that  it  seemed  to  him  that 
the  care  of  the  goods  in  a  room  used  for  the  exhibi- 
tion of  the  goods  to  persons  over  whom  the  inn- 
keeper could  have  no  check  or  control  hardly  fell 
within  the  limits  of  his  duty  as  an  innkeeper;  that 
the  room  was  not  merely  intrusted  to  our  friend  in 
the  ordinary  character  of  a  guest  frequenting  an 
inn,  but  that  he  must  be  understood  as  having 
special  charge  of  it.  And  another  learned  judge 
gave  it  as  his  sentiments  that  the  traveler  should  be 
taken  to  have  received  the  favor  of  the  private 
room  cum  onere  /  that  is,  he  accepted  it  upon  the 
condition  of  taking  the  goods  under  his  own  care."  1 
"But,"  I  said,  "of  course,  simply  ordering  goods 
to  be  placed  in  a  particular  room  is  not  such  a  tak- 
ing under  one's  own  cai-e  as  to  absolve  an  innkeeper 
from  his  responsibility.2  I  recollect  a  case  where  a 
traveler,  on  arriving,  requested  his  impedimenta,  as 
old  Caesar  used  to  say,  to  be  taken  to  the  commer- 
cial room ;  they  were,  and  they  were  stolen,  and 
the  innkeeper  was  held  bound  to  recoup  the  man, 
although  he  proved  that  the  usual  practice  of  the 
house  was  to  place  the  luggage  in  the  guest's  room, 
and  not  in  the  commercial  room,  unless  an  express 
order  was  given  to  the  contrary.  The  chief  justice 
remarked  that  if  mine  host  had  intended  not  to  be 
responsible  unless  his  guests  chose  to  have  their 
goods  placed  in  their  sleeping  apartments,  or  such 
other  place  as  to  him  might  seem  meet,  he  should 
have  told  them  so."  3 

1  Burgess  v.  Clements,  4  Maule  &  S.  307. 

2  Packard  v.  Northcraft,  2  Met.  (Ky.)  439. 
s  Richmond  v.  Smith,  8  Barn.  &  C.  9. 


ACCIDENTS,    ROOMS,   DOGS.  53 

By-stander  observed  that  the  law  seemed  incon- 
sistent, as  there  did  not  appear  to  be  much  differ- 
ence between  the  two  cases. 

"  Mr.  Justice  Holroyd  distinguished  the  latter 
from  the  former  case  by  saying  that  the  Birming- 
ham man  asked  to  have  a  room  which  lie  used  for 
the  purposes  of  trade,  not  merely  as  a  guest  in  the 
inn.1  In  Wisconsin,  it  was  held  that  the  retention 
by  a  guest  of  money  or  valuables  upon  his  person 
was  not  such  exclusive  control  as  to  exonerate  an 
innkeeper  from  liability,  if  the  loss  was  not  induced 
by  the  negligence  or  misconduct  of  the  guest,"  2  re- 
marked one  who  knew  whereof  he  affirmed. 

"An  hotel-keeper  is  of  course  liable  for  the  con- 
duct of  another  guest,  placed  in  a  room  already  oc- 
cupied, without  the  consent  of  the  occupant.3  And 
where  a  guest  left  his  door  unlocked,  because  he 
was  told  that  he  must  either  do  so  or  get  up  in  the 
night  and  open  it,  as  others  had  to  share  the  room 
with  him,  the  innkeeper  was  held  liable  for  every- 
thing lost."  4 

This  very  learned  and  intensely  uninteresting 
discussion  Avas  here  summarily  put  a  stop  to  by  the 
appearance  in  the  room  of  several  ladies  who  had 
respectively  claims  upon  the  respective  talkers,  and 
who  were  ready  and  willing  to  inspect  the  inside 
of  the  luncheon  hall. 

"  How  singularly  our  hours  of  refection  have 
changed,"  remarked  Mr.  L.  Inthelaw.  "You  re- 

1  Richmond  v.  Smith,  8  Barn.  &  C.  9. 

2  Jailei  v.  Cardinal,  35  Wis.  118. 

3  Dessauer  v.  Baker,  1  Wilson  (Ind. )  429. 
*  Milford  v.  Wesley,  1  Wilaon  (Ind.)  119. 


54  ACCIDENTS,   ROOMS,   DOGS. 

member  that  in  the  sixteenth  century  the  saying  was : 

'  Lever  a  cinq,  diner  a  neuf, 
Souper  a  cinq,  coucher  a  neuf, 
Fait  vivre  d'ans  nonante  et  neuf.' 

"And  even  in  the  early  days  of  the  reign  of 
Louis  XIV  the  dinner  hour  of  the  court  was  eleven 
o'clock,  or  noon  at  the  latest." 

"  Yes,"  I  replied,  "  I  have  noticed  that  the  his- 
torians say  that  one  of  the  causes  which  hastened 
the  death  of  Louis  XII  was  his  changing  his  dinner 
hour  from  nine  to  twelve  at  the  solicitation  of  his 
wife.  What  a  fine  house  this  is ! " 

"  Well,  sir,"  was  the  response,  "believe  a  stranger 
and  a  foreigner  when  he  tells  you  that,  good  as  are 
some  of  the  hotels  in  Europe,  the  American  ones 
surpass  them  all  both  in  size  and  in  general  fitness 
of  purpose." 

"  I  am  glad  to  hear  you  say  so.  I  presume  that 
the  great  extent  of  our  territory,  the  natural  dispo- 
sition of  our  people  to  travel,  our  extensive  network 
of  railways,  have  developed  our  hotel  system,  and 
made  it,  as  you  say,  without  a  parallel  in  the  world," 
I  replied. 

"Have  you  traveled  much,  sir?"  asked  Mrs. 
Lawyer. 

"  Yes,  well  nigh  all  round  the  world.  And  so,  I 
flatter  myself,  I  have  had  more  experience  in  hotels 
than  most  men." 

"You  must  have  seen  a  great  variety,"  I  re- 
marked. 

The  Englishman  smilingly  replied :  "  In  far  off 
China  I  have  carried  about  my  own  bedding  from 


ACCIDENTS,   ROOMS,   DOGS.  55 

inn  to  inn,  not  caring  to  occupy  that  in  which  a 
Celestial,  a  Tartar,  or  a  Russian  had  slept  the  night 
before.  In  Franco,  I  have  taken  around  my  little 
piece  of  soap,  an  almost  unknown  luxury  in  Conti- 
nental hotels.  In  India,  I  have  lodged  in  the  dak 
bungalows  provided  by  the  government,  where  the 
articles  of  furniture  are  like  donkey's  gallops — few 
and  far  between.  There  you  must  manage  the 
commissariat  department  yourself  if  you  would  not 
starve.  I  remember  once  stopping  at  one  of  the  best 
country  hotels  in  the  Bombay  Presidency,  and  was 
given  a  sitting-room,  a  bed-room,  and  a  bath-room ; 
but  in  the  first  a  number  of  birds  had  built  their 
nests,  and  flew  in  and  out  and  roundabout  at  their 
pleasure ;  in  the  bed-room  a  colony  of  ants  swarmed 
over  the  floor,  while  in  my  third  room  cockroaches 
and  other  creeping  things  gave  a  variegated  hue  to 
the  pavement ;  everything  else  was  in  keeping." 

"  Horrors !  "  exclaimed  Mrs.  L. 

"  Unpleasant,  to  say  the  least,"  I  remarked,  "  un- 
less, indeed,  you  were  a  naturalist." 

"  I  think,"  continued  our  traveled  friend,  "  that 
one  never  feels  at  home  in  an  European  hotel.  You 
never  know  your  landlord  or  your  fellow-sojourners ; 
the  table  d'hote  in  the  grand  dining-halls  prevents  all 
intercourse  between  the  guests ;  they  never  have  a 
smoking-room,  a  billiard-room,  a  bar-room,  or  a  bath- 
room ;  if  you  want  to  do  *  tumbles  '  you  are  furnished 
with  a  regular  old  tub." 

"I  know  that  from  experience,"  said  my  wife. 
"Once  at  a  grand  hotel  in  Florence  I  wanted  a 
bath,  and  was  promised  one.  By-and-by,  as  I  sat  at 


56  ACCIDENTS,    BOOMS,    DOGS. 

my  window  in  the  gloaming,  I  saw  a  man  trundling 
a  handcart  containing  a  bath  and  some  barrels.  In 
a  few  minutes  two  men  solemnly  ushered  this  iden- 
tical tub  into  my  room,  then  in  three  successive  trips 
they  brought  in  three  barrels  of  water,  two  cold, 
the  other  hot ;  a  sheet  was  spread  over  the  bath, 
and  the  water  allowed  to  gurgle  out  of  the  bung- 
hole  into  it,  while  with  uprolled  sleeve  the  swarthy 
Italian  mingled  the  hot  and  the  cold  with  his  hand 
till  what  he  considered  a  suitable  temperature  was 
gained.  When  all  was  ready,  the  man  coolly  asked 
how  soon  he  should  come  back  for  his  apparatus. 
Actually  there  was  neither  bath  nor  water  in  the 
hotel,  although  the  Arno  rolled  beneath  its  win- 
dows. As  you  say,  bath-rooms  are  unknown  in 
civilized  Europe." 

"  Then,  again,"  I  said,  "  if  you  want  your  dinner, 
and  are  not  at  table  d'hote,  you  must  write  out  a  list 
of  what  you  want  as  long  as  a  newspaper  editorial, 
hand  it  in,  and  wait  longer  than  it  would  take  to 
set  it  up  in  type  before  the  eatables  appear.  I  have 
known  people  wait  an  hour  at  swell  hotels,  and 
then  go  away  unsatisfied." 

"  There  are  plenty  of  hotels  in  all  large  English 
towns,"  said  our  friend ;  "  but  none  a  quarter  of  the 
size  of  the  large  caravansaries  to  be  found  in  New 
York,  Philadelphia,  Chicago,  or  San  Francisco. 
Their  exteriors  are  rather  fine,  a  few  rooms  are  well 
furnished ;  but,  on  the  whole,  they  are  dark  and 
dingy." 

"  Were  you  ever  at  the  Grand  Hotel  du  Louvre, 
in  Paris  ?  "  asked  my  wife. 


ACCIDENTS,   ROOMS,   DOGS.  57 

"Yes.  What  a  splendid  place  it  is !  The  dining- 
room  is  not  the  largest,  but  it  is  as  fine  as  any  in 
the  world  ;  its  ornamentation  is  so  chaste,  its  chan- 
deliers so  splendid,  its  mirrors  so  magnificent,  and 
the  dinner  is  perfection;  in  fact,  as  some  one  says, 
it  is  the  elysium  of  the  bon-vivants  and  the  paradise 
of  the  esthetic.  But  if  I  go  on  in  this  style  you 
will  take  me  for  a  'runner'  for  first-class  hotels." 
We  then  passed  on  to  another  subject,  as  the  read- 
er must  to  another  chapter. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

GUESTS,  WAGERS,   AND   GAMES. 

A  fashionable  young  gent — a  dweller  in  the  city 
• — (on  whose  face  nature,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
Honorable  Percy  Popjoy,  had  burst  out  with  a 
chin-tuft,  but,  exhausted  with  the  effort,  had  left 
the  rest  of  the  countenance  smooth  as  an  infant's 
cheek)  had  been  enjoying  himself  with  some  kin- 
dred spirits,  (and  some  spirits  far  stronger,  too,) 
and  being  belated,  as  well  as  rather  bewildered, 
with  the  potations  of  the  evening,  went  to  bed  in 
our  hotel.  The  next  morning  he  found  himself  the 
possessor  of  a  splitting  headache,  but  minus  his  gold 
repeater;  so  he  kindly  and  condescendingly  con- 
sulted me  upon  the  subject  of  the  proprietor's  lia- 
bility to  make  good  his  loss. 

I  told  him  that  in  my  opinion  he  had  better  save 
up  his  money  and  buy  a  new  watch,  for  there  were 
several  reasons  why  the  hotel-keeper  need  not  give 
him  one. 

"What  are  they?"  he  asked. 

"We  need  not  consider,"  I  replied,  "the  ques- 
tion of  your  negligence  in  carelessly  exhibiting 
your  watch  among  a  lot  of  people  at  the  bar,  nor 
in  leaving  your  door  unlocked,  nor  need  we  say 
that  because  your  intoxication  contributed  to  the 
loss,  therefore  the  landlord  is  not  liable.1  The  fact 

i  Walsh  v.  Porterfield,  Sup.  Ct.  Pa.  19  Alb.  L.  J.  37a 


GUESTS,   WAGERS,     AND    GAMES.  69 

that  you  were  not  a  traveler  is  sufficient  to  prevent 
your  recovering.  Long  since  it  was  laid  down  in  old 
Bacon  that  inns  are  for  passengers  and  wayfaring 
men,  so  that  a  friend  or  a  neighbor  can  have  no 
action  as  a  guest  against  the  landlord."  1 

"  What  in  thunder  have  I  to  do  with  what  is 
laid  down  in  old  Bacon?" 

"  What  is  to  be  found  inside  old  Bacon,  and  old 
calf,  and  old  sheep,  has  a  good  deal  to  do  with 
every  one  who  makes  an  old  pig  of  himself,"  I 
testily  replied. 

"  I  trust,  sir,  that  you  use  that  last  epithet  in  its 
Pickwickian  sense,"  said  the  young  exquisite. 

" Certainly,  certainly,"  I  hastened  to  reply,  "if 
you  will  so  accept  it." 

"  Then  I  would  ask,"  continued  my  interrogator, 
"must  a  man  be  a  certain  length  of  time  at  an 
hotel  before  he  is  entitled  to  the  privileges  of  a 
guest?" 

"  Oh,  dear,  no !  Merely  purchasing  temporary 
refreshment  at  an  inn  makes  the  purchaser  a  guest 
and  renders  the  innkeeper  liable  for  the  safety  of 
the  goods  he  may  have  with  him,2  if  he  is  a  trav- 
eler." 

"  But  who  is  a  traveler  ?  " 

"  One  who  is  absent  from  his  home,  whether  on 
pleasure  or  business.3  A  townsman  or  neighbor, 
who  is  actually  traveling,  may  be  a  guest.4  In  a 

1  Bacon,  Abridg.,  vol.  4,  p.  448. 

2 McDonalds.  Edgerton,  5  Barb.  5GO;  Bennett  v.  Mellor,  5 
T.  R.  274. 

3  Per  Cock  burn,  C.  J.,  Atkinson  v.  Sellars,  5  C.  B.  N.  S.  442. 

4  Walling  v.  Potter,  35  Conn.  183. 


GO  GUESTS,    WAGERS,    AND    GAMES. 

New  York  case,  where  a  resident  of  the  town  left 
his  horses  at  the  inn  stables,  it  was  decided  that 
the  proprietor  was  not  liable  for  them.1  So  if  a 
ball  is  given  at  an  hotel  the  guests  present  cannot 
hold  the  proprietor  liable  for  any  losses  occurring 
while  they  are  tripping  the  light  fantastic  toe,  as 
he  did  not  receive  them  in  his  public  capacity."  2 

"  But,"  remarked  a  person  standing  by,  "  but  how 
would  it  be  if  a  traveler  left  his  baggage  at  an  hotel 
and  stopped  elsewhere  ?  " 

"  If  one  leaves  any  dead  thing,  as  baggage,  at  an 
inn  he  will  not  be  considered  a  guest ; 3  if,  on  the 
other  hand,  he  leaves  a  horse,  he  becomes  entitled 
to  all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  a  guest, 
even  though  he  himself  lodges  elsewhere."  4 

"  Why  the  difference  ?  "  quoth  one. 

"  I  might,  perhaps,  be  more  correct  if  I  said  that 
on  this  point  the  authorities  are  antagonistic.5  The 
distinction,  however,  was  made  because,  as  the 
horse  must  be  fed,  the  innkeeper  has  a  profit  out  of 
it,  whereas  he  gets  nothing  out  of  a  dead  thing.<3 
One  need  not,  however,  take  all  his  meals  or  lodge 
every  night  at  the  inn  where  his  baggage  is.  It  is 
sufficient  if  he  takes  a  room  and  lodges  or  boards 
at  the  house  part  of  the  time."  7 

1  Grinnell  v.  Cook,  3  Hill,  (N.  Y.)  486. 

2  Carter  v.  Hobbs,  12  Mich.  52. 

8Gelley  v.  Clarke,  Cro.  Jac.  188;  Orange  Co.  Bank  v. 
Brown,  9  Wend.  114. 

4  York  v.  Grindstone,  1  Salk.  388  ;  Mason  v.  Thompson,  9 
Pick.  280;  Peet  v.  McGraw,  25  Wend.  653. 

0  Ingalsbee  v.  Woods,  33  N.  Y.  577 ;  Parsons  on  Contracts, 
Vol.  2,  p.  153. 

6  York  v.  Grindstone,  supra. 

'  McDaniels  v.  Kobinson,  26  Vt.  316. 


GUESTS,    WAGERS,    AND    GAMES.  61 

"I  think  I  have  heard  that  if  one  makes  an 
agreement  for  boarding  by  the  week,  he  ceases  to 
have  the  rights  of  a  guest,"  said  the  previous 
speaker. 

"  The  length  of  time  for  which  a  person  resides 
at  an  hotel  does  not  affect  his  rights,  so  long  as  lie 
retains  his  transient  character  ; 1  nor  does  he  cease 
to  be  a  guest  by  proposing  after  his  arrival  to  re- 
main a  certain  time,  nor  by  his  ascertaining  the 
charges,  nor  by  paying  in  advance,  nor  from  time 
to  time  as  his  wants  are  supplied,2  nor  even  by  ar- 
ranging to  pay  so  much  a  week  for  his  board,  if  he 
stays  so  long,  after  he  has  taken  up  his  quarters  at 
the  house ;  3  but  if  when  he  first  arrives  he  makes 
a  speci.il  agreement  as  to  board,4  or  for  the  use  of 
a  room,5  he  never  becomes  a  guest,  and  the  inn- 
keeper's liability  is  totally  different,  being  only  that 
of  an  ordinary  bailee.  One  visiting  a  boarder  at 
an  inn  is  a  guest,  and  the  keeper  is  liable  for  the 
loss  of  his  goods,  though  not  of  the  boarder's."  6 

"And  when  docs  a  person  cease  to  have  the 
rights  of  a  guest  ?  "  again  queried  the  questioner. 

I  replied,  "An  innkeeper's  liability,  as  such, 
ceases  when  the  guest  pays  his  bill  and  quits  tho 
house  with  the  declared  intention  of  not  returning, 

1  Parkhurst  v.  Foster,  Sal.  388. 

2  Pinkerton  v.  Woodward,  33  Gal.  557. 

8  Shoecraft  v.  Bailey,  25  Iowa,  553  ;  Berkshire  Woollen  Co. 
v.  Proctor,  7  Gush.  417  ;  Hall  v.  Pike,  100  Mass.  495. 

4  Chamberlain  v.  Masterson,  26  Ala.  371  ;  Manning  v.  Wells, 
9  Humph.  746;  Ewart  v.  Stark,  8  Rich.  423;  Hursh  v.  Beyers, 
29  Mo.  409;  Parkhurst  V.Foster,  Sal.  388. 

5  Parker  v.  Flint,  12  Mod.  255. 
cLusku.  Belote,  22  Minn.  468. 

6. 


62  GUESTS,    WAGERS,    AND    GAMES. 

and  if  he  then  leaves  any  of  his  possessions  behind 
him,  the  landlord  is  no  longer  liable  for  their  safe 
keeping,  unless  he  has  taken  special  charge  of  them, 
and  then  only  as  any  other  common  bailee  would 
be.1  And  this  appears  to  be  so,  even  when  an  ar- 
rangement has  been  made  for  the  keep  of  the  guest's 
horse.2  Unless  specially  authorized,  a  clerk  cannot 
bind  his  master  by  an  agreement  to  keep  safely  a 
guest's  baggage  after  he  leaves."  3 

"  But  supposing  one  pays  his  bills  and  goes  off  ex- 
pecting to  have  his  traps  sent  after  him  immediately 
to  the  station  ?  "  questioned  a  new  interrogator. 

"  Mrs.  Clark  went  to  '  The  Exchange  Hotel '  in 
Atlanta,  with  eight  trunks  ;  on  leaving,  the  porter 
of  the  inn  took  charge  of  the  baggage,  promising  to 
deliver  it  for  her  at  the  cars.  He  lost  two  of  the 
pieces,  and  it  was  held  that  the  liability  of  the 
hotel-keeper  continued  until  such  delivery  was 
actually  made.4  On  the  same  principle  that  when 
an  innkeeper  sends  his  porter  to  the  cars  to  receive 
the  baggage  of  intending  guests,  he  is  responsible 
until  it  is  actually  re-delivered  into  the  custody  of 
the  guests.  And  where  a  man  paid  his  bill  for  the 
whole  day  and  went  off,  leaving  his  trunk,  with 
twenty  cents  for  porterage,  to  be  sent  to  the  boat, 
the  innkeeper  was  held  liable  until  the  baggage 
was  actually  put  on  board.5  The  liability  for  bag^ 

1  Wintermate  v.  Clarke,  5  Sandf.  262;  Lawrence  v.  Howard, 
1  Utah  T.  142. 

2McDaniels  v.  Robinson,  28  Vt.  387. 
3Corkindale  v.  Eaton,  40  How.  N.  Y.  Pr.  266. 
<  Sasseen  v.  Clark,  37  Ga.  242. 
6  Giles  v.  Fauntleroy,  13  Md.  126. 


GUESTS,   WAGERS,    AND    GAMES.  63 

gage  left  with  an  innkeeper  with  his  consent,  con- 
tinues for  a  reasonable  time  after  the  settlement  of 
the  bill,  and  even  after  a  reasonable  time  he  is 
responsible  for  gross  negligence.1  Where  a  visitor 
had  actual  notice  that  the  landlord  would  not  be 
responsible  for  valuables  unless  put  under  his  care, 
and  on  preparing  to  depart  gave  a  trunk  containing 
precious  goods  into  the  care  of  the  servants  and  it 
was  lost,  yet  the  innkeeper  was  held  liable.2  So, 
also,  where  valuables  were  stolen  from  a  trunk 
after  the  guest  had  packed  it,  locked  his  room,  and 
given  notice  of  his  departure,  and  delivered  the 
key  of  his  room  to  the  clerk  to  have  the  trunk 
brought  down.3  What  is  all  that  row  about?" 

Weary  of  the  conversation,  and  being  attracted 
by  some  rather  loud  conversation  in  another  part 
of  the  room,  I  walked  off  to  see  what  it  was  all 
about,  and  soon  found  that  it  was  anent  a  young 
lady's  age. 

"  I  bet  you  she  is — "  began  one  of  the  disputants. 

"  Stop !  "  I  cried,  "  that  is  not  a  proper  wager." 

"Begad!  what  do  you  mean,  sir?"  was  queried 
in  tones  not  the  mildest. 

"  Simply  that  where  a  wager  concerns  the  person 
of  another,  no  action  can  be  maintained  upon  it. 
As  Duller,  J.,  once  remarked,  a  bet  on  a  lady's  age, 
or  whether  she  has  a  mole  on  her  face,  is  void.  No 
person  has  a  right  to  make  it  a  subject  of  discussion 
in  a  court  of  justice,  whether  she  passes  herself  in 

1  Adams  v.  Glenn,  41  Ga.  65. 
2Stanton  v.  Leland,  4  E.  D.  Smith,  88. 

3IJendet8on  v.  French,  4G  N.  Y.  266;   Kellogg  v.  Sweeney, 
Ibid.  291. 


64  GUESTS,   WAGERS,    AND    GAMES. 

the  world  to  be  more  in  the  bloom  of  youth  than 
she  really  is,  or  whether  what  is  apparent  to  every 
one  who  sees  her,  is  a  mole  or  a  wart;  although  a 
lady  cannot  bring  an  action  against  a  man  for  say- 
ing she  is  thirty-three  when  she  passes  for  only 
twenty-three,  nor  for  saying  she  has  a  wart  on  her 
face.  Nor  will  the  courts  try  a  wager  as  to  whether  a 
young  lady  squints  with  her  right  eye  or  with  her 
left.1  And  Lord  Mansfield  came  to  very  much  the 
same  conclusion  in  discussing  the  law  in  a  celebrated 
wager  case  concerning  the  gender  of  a  certain  in- 
dividual,2 because,  as  his  lordship  remarked,  actions 
on  such  wagers  would  disturb  the  peace  of  individ- 
uals and  society." 

"Confound  it,  the  fellow  seems  to  have  swallowed 
a  law  library,"  muttered  one  man ;  while  another 
said, 

"  But  surely  many  wagers  equally  as  absurd  have 
been  sued  on  in  courts  of  law  with  success." 

"  There  is  no  doubt  of  that,"  I  replied.  "  It  was 
done  upon  a  bet  of  'six  to  four  that  Bob  Booby 
would  win  the  plate  at  the  New  Lichfield  races;'3 
also,  upon  a  wager  of  a  '  rump  and  dozen '  whether 
one  of  the  betters  were  older  than  the  other.4  In 
the  latter  case  the  C.  J.  modestly  said  that  he  did 
not  judicially  know  what  a  'rump  and  dozen' 
meant;  but  another  judge  more  candidly  remarked 
that  privately  he  knew  that  it  meant  a  good  dinner 
and  wine.  And  a  bet  as  to  whose  father  would  die 

1  Good  v.  Elliott,  3  T.  R.  693. 

2  Da  Costa  v.  Jones,  Cowper,  729. 

»  McAllister  v.  Haden,  2  Campb.  436. 
4  Hussey  v.  Crickett,  3  Campb.  1GO. 


GTJESTS,    WAGERS,     AND    GAMES.  65 

first  was  held  good,  although  one  old  man  was  de- 
funct at  the  time,  the  fact  not  being  known  to  the 
parties.1  But  Lord  ElJenborough  refused  to  try 
an  action  on  a  wager  on  a  cock-fight."  2 

"Although  at  common  law  many  wagers  were 
legal,"  remarked  the  English  gentleman  alluded  to 
aforetime,  "  still,  in  England,  as  the  law  now  stands, 
all  Avagers  are  null  and  void  at  law,3  and  if  the  loser 
either  cannot  or  won't  pay,  the  law  will  not  assist 
the  winner;4  but  either  party  may  reco'ver  the 
stake  deposited  by  him,  before  it  is  paid  over  to 
the  winner  by  the  holder.  That  point  was  settled 
in  the  case  of  a  genius  who  bet  all  the  philosophers, 
divines,  and  scientific  professors  in  the  United 
Kingdom,  £500,  that  they  could  not  prove  the  ro- 
tundity and  revolution  of  the  earth  from  Scripture, 
from  reason,  or  from  fact,  the  wager  to  be  won  by 
the  taker  if  he  could  exhibit  to  the  satisfaction  of 
an  intelligent  referee  a  convex  railway,  canal,  or 
lake."  5 

"  Was  the  referee  satisfied  ?  "  asked  a  bystander. 

"  Yes ;  it  was  proved  to  his  satisfaction  that  on  a 
canal,  in  a  distance  of  six  miles,  there  was  a  curva- 
ture to  and  fro  of  five  feet,  more  or  less.  And  then 
the  man  asked  his  stake  back,  and  got  it,  too." 

"In  New  York,"  I  said,  "it  has  been  held,  under 
a  statute  giving  the  losing  party  a  right  of  action 
against  the  stake-holder  for  the  stake,  whether  the 

1  Earl  of  March  v.  Pigot,  5  Burr.  2802. 

2  Squires  v.  Whisken,  3  Camp.  140. 

3  See  8  and  9  Viet.,  chap.  109. 

4  Savage  v.  Madden,  36  L.  J.  Ex.  178. 
^Hampden  v.  Walsh,  L.  E.  1  Q.  B.  Div.  189. 


66  GUESTS,   WAGERS,    AND    GAMES. 

stake  has  been  paid  over  by  the  stake-holder  or  not. 
and  whether  the  wager  be  lost  or  not,  that  the 
holder  is  liable  to  the  loser,  although  he  had  paid 
over  the  stake  by  his  directions.1  And  in  several  of 
the  States,  if  the  wager  is  illegal,  the  stake-holder 
is  liable  to  be  made  refund  the  stakes,  notwith- 
standing payment  to  the  winner."  2 

"  Such  decisions  are  subversive  of  all  honor  and 
honesty,"  said  a  betting  looking  character. 

"Not  so.  A  bet  should  be  a  contract  of  honor, 
and  no  more.  One  should  not  bet  unless  he  can 
trust  his  opponent.  The  time  of  the  courts  of  law 
should  not  be  taken  up  by  such  matters." 

"  Are  the  American  courts  as  hard  upon  wagers 
as  the  English  ?  "  asked  the  Englishman. 

"  Quite  so,"  I  replied.  "  In  some  parts  of  the 
country  they  have  been  prohibited  by  statute,  and 
some  courts  have  denied  them  any  validity  what- 
ever. In  Colorado  it  was  held  that  the  courts  had 
enough  to  do  without  devoting  their  time  to  the 
solution  of  questions  arising  out  of  idle  bets  made 
on  dog  and  cock-fights,  horse-races,  the  speed  of 
trains,  the  construction  of  railroads,  the  number  on 
a  dice,  or  the  character  of  a  card  that  may  be 
turned  up.3  Even  if  admitted  to  be  valid  in  any 
case,  it  is  quite  clear  upon  the  authorities  that  they 
cannot  be  upheld  where  they  refer  to  the  person  or 
property  of  another,  so  as  to  make  him  infamous  or 

i  Kuchman  v.  Pitcher,  1  Comst.  392. 

2 Garrison  v.  McGregor,  51  111.  473;  Adkina  v.  Fleming,  29 
Iowa,  122;  Searle  v.  Prevost,  4  Houst.  (Del.)  467.  But  see 
Johnston  v.  Russell,  37  Cal.  G70. 

3Eldred  v.  Malloy,  2  Col.  320. 


67 

to  injure  him,  or  if  they  are  libelous,  or  indecent,  or 
tend  to  break  the  peace.1  In  some  States  it  has 
been  decided  that  wagers  upon  the  result  of  elec- 
tions are  against  public  policy,  and  therefore  void. 
In  California,  during  the  presidential  campaign  of 
1868,  a  man  called  Johnson  bet  that  Horatio  Sey- 
mour would  have  a  majority  of  votes  in  that  State, 
while  one  Freeman  bet  that  IT.  S.  Grant  would  be 
the  lucky  man.  Mr.  Russell  was  the  stakeholder. 
After  the  result  of  the  election  was  known,  John- 
son demanded  his  money  back,  but  Russell  honor- 
ably paid  it  over  to  the  winner ;  so  J.  turned  round 
and  sued  for  it.  The  Court  held,  that  if  Johnson 
had  repudiated  his  bet  and  asked  for  his  money  be- 
fore the  election,  or  before  the  result  was  known, 
he  might  have  got  it,  but  that  now  he  was  too  late.2 
Judge  Sanderson  remarked  that  in  times  of  politi- 
cal excitement  persons  might  be  provoked  to  make 
wagers  which  they  might  regret  in  their  cooler  mo- 
ments. No  obstacles,  he  thought,  should  be  thrown 
in  the  way  of  their  repentance,  and  if  they  re- 
tracted before  the  bet  has  been  decided,  their  money 
ought  to  be  returned ;  but  those  who  allow  their 
stakes  to  remain  until  after  the  wager  has  been 
decided  and  the  result  known,  are  entitled  to  no 
such  consideration  ;  their  tears,  if  any,  are  not  re- 
pentant tears,  but  such  as  crocodiles  shed  over  the 
victims  they  are  about  to  devour."  3 

"Ah,  then  it  has  been   judicially   decided   that 

1  Parsons  on  Contracts,  vol.  2,  p.  756. 

2  Yates  v.  Foot,  12  Johns.  1. 

8  Johnson  v.  Russell,  37  Cal.  670. 


68  GUESTS,    WAGERS,    AND    GAMES. 

crocodiles  weep,"  sarcastically  observed  a  by- 
stander. 

From  talking  on  wagering,  we  naturally  passed 
to  the  subject  of  gaming — a  kindred  vice. 

"  I  believe  that  in  England  there  is  a  law  forbid- 
ding an  innkeeper  to  allow  any  gaming  on  his  prem- 
ises," I  remarked. 

"Yes,"  said  the  English  barrister.  "Any  licensed 
innkeeper  who  suffers  any  gaming  or  betting  or 
unlawful  games  upon  his  premises,  runs  the  risk  of 
being  fined."1 

"What  do  they  consider  gaming?"  asked  a  rak- 
ish looking  individual,  who  seemed  as  if  he  under- 
stood practically  what  it  was. 

"  Playing  at  any  game  for  money,2  or  beer, 
or  money's  Avorth ; 3  or  even  exhibiting  betting 
lists."4 

"  That  seems  precious  hard,"  quoth  the  rake. 

"  In  one  case  an  innkeeper  was  punished  for  al- 
lowing his  own  private  friends  to  play  at  cards  for 
money  in  his  own  private  room,  on  the  licensed 
premises."5 

"Not  much  liberty  in  England,"  remarked  the 
youth. 

"That  was  almost  as  bad  as  the  tavernkeeper 
who  was  fined  by  some  energetic  Yorkshire  magis- 

1  Wharton  on  Innkeepers,  62. 
*  Ilex  v.  Asliton,  22  L.  J.  M.  C.  1. 

3  Danford  v.  Taylor,  22  L.  T.  Rep.  483  ;  Foot  v.  Baker,  G 
Scott  N.  K.  301. 

4  Searle  v.  St.  Martins'  J.  J.  4  J.  P.  276 ;  Avards  v.  Dunce, 
26  J.  P.  4:!7. 

o  Patten  v.  liliymer,  29  L.  J.  M.  0.  189. 


GUESTS,   WAGERS,    AND    GAMES.  69 

trate  for  being  drunk  in  his  own  bed,  in  his  own 
house ! " l  observed  another. 

"Farewell  to  the  fond  notion  that  an  English- 
man's house  is  his  castle ! :'  melodramatically  ex- 
claimed the  youth. 

"  But  please  allow  me  to  say  that  Lust,  J.,  held, 
in  a  very  recent  case,  that  although  an  innkeeper, 
if  drunk  on  his  own  premises  while  they  are  open, 
is  as  much  amenable  to  the  penalty  as  if  he 
was  found  drunk  upon  the  highway,  yet  it  could 
never  have  been  intended  that  an  innkeeper  who  is 
drunk  in  his  own  bedroom  should  be  liable  any 
more  than  a  person — not  a  publican — found  drunk 
in  his  own  private  house,"  2  said  the  Englishman. 

"And  what,  pray,  may  be  the  unlawful  games 
which  are  so  sti'ictly  forbidden  inside  the  tavern — 
the  poor  man's  home?"  asked  the  youth. 

"Dice,  ace  of  hearts,  faro,  basset,  hazard,  passage, 
or  any  game  played  with  dice,  or  with  any  instru- 
ment, engine,  or  device  in  the  nature  of  dice,  hav- 
ing figures  or  numbers  thereon,  and  roulette,  or 
rolly-polly;  and  bull-baiting,  bear-baiting,  badger- 
baiting,  dog-fighting,  coclc-fighting,  and  all  such 
games,  are  unlawful,"  replied  the  Englishman. 

"  Surely,  you  have  not  got  through  the  black  list 
yet,"  ironically  remarked  our  rake. 

"Those  mentioned,  and  the  game  of  puff  and 
dart,  if  played  for  money  or  money's  worth,3  and 
lotteries  and  sweepstakes,  except  in  cases  of  art 
unions,  where  works  of  art  are  given  as  prizes,  are 

iWharton,  81. 

«  Lester  v.  Torrens,  L.  R.  2  Q.  B.  Div.  403. 

s  Bew  v.  Harston,  L.  K.  3  Q.  B.  Div.  454. 


70  GUESTS,   WAG~BS,    AND    GAMES. 

all  the  games  I  remember,  that  are  prohibited  by 
the  Statutes  of  Henry  VIII,  George  II,  and  her 
present  Majesty." 

"  May  I  ask  what  games  you  are  permitted  to  in- 
dulge in?  I  do  not  see  that  any  are  left,  except  the 
'grinning  through  a  halter,'  spoken  of  in  The  Spec- 
tator, in  which  highly  intellectual  and  moral  con- 
test the  rule  is 

'"The  dreadfullest  grinner 
To  be  the  winner. ' 

"  Backgammon  and  all  games  played  .upon  back- 
gammon boards,1  quoits,  tennis,  and  all  games  of 
mere  skill,  are  perfectly  lawful,  unless  played  for 
money  or  money's  worth."  2 

"And  what  of  billiards?" 

"  Oh,  that  is  not  unlawful  unless  played  for 
money."  3 

"No  wonder,"  said  Mr.  Rake,  "that  people  emi- 
grate from  that  benighted  land.  And  yet  Henry 
VII,  and  James  I,  and  his  estimable  son,  Prince 
Henry,  were  remarkably  fond  of  having  a  game  of 
cards ;  although  Scotch  Jamie  was  so  lazy  a  coou 
that  he  required  a  servant  to  hold  his  hand  for  him. 
I  believe  that  those  good  sovereigns  Avho  passed 
these  virtuous  laws  took  care  to  except  from  their 
operation  their  royal  palaces."  4 

"  I  would  remind  you,  my  good  sir,"  I  said,  "  that 
gaming  is  forbidden  in  almost  all  the  States ;  thai 

1 13  Geo.  H,  chap.  19. 

2  8  and  9  Viet.  chap.  109-  sec.  1. 

3  Wharton,  05. 

4  Abinger,  C.  B.,  in  Mc-Xinnell  v.  Kobinson,  3  M.  &  W.  43? 


GUESTS,   WAGEBS,    AND    GAMES.  71 

a  judge  in  South  Carolina  said  that  if  he  could 
have  his  own  way,  he  would  hold  that  a  billiard 
room  kept  for  filthy  lucre's  sake  was  a  nuisance  at 
common  law;1  and  the  same  judge  decided  that  a 
bowling-alley  kept  for  gain  was  a  nuisance.  In 
Kentucky,  it  was  held  unlawful  to  throw  dice  to  see 
who  should  pay  for  the  drinks ;  2  in  Virginia,  bet- 
ting on  a  game  of  bagatelle  was  held  illegal ; 3 
while  in  Tennessee,  selling  prize-candy  packages 
was  decided  to  be  gaming  and  indictable."  * 

"  Alas,  my  country ! " 

"  By  the  way,  do  you  remember,  sir,  the  distinc- 
tion the  Ettrick  Shepherd  drew  between  the  card- 
playing  of  old  people  and  that  of  young  folk?" 
asked  an  elderly  bystander  of  Scotian  descent. 

"No,  what  was  it?" 

"  He  says,  '  you'll  generally  fin'  that  auld  folk 
that  play  carrds  have  been  raither  freevolous,  and 
no  muckle  addicteed  to  thocht,  unless  they're 
greedy,  and  play  for  the  pool,  which  is  fearsome  in 
auld  age.  But  as  for  young  folks,  lads  and  lasses 
like,  when  the  gude  man  and  his  wife  are  gaen  to 
bed,  what's  the  harm  in  a  gaem  at  cairds?  It's  a 
cheerfu'  noisy  sicht  o'  comfort  and  confusion ;  sic 
lookin'  into  ane  ainither's  han's !  sic  fause  shufflm1 ! 
sic  unfair  dealin' !  sic  winkin'  to  tell  your  pairtncr 
that  ye  hae  the  king  or  the  ace !  And  when  that 
winna  do,  sic  kicken'  o'  shins  an'  treadin'  on  taes 

1  Tanner  v.  Albion,  5  Hill,  128  ;  but  see  People  v.  Sargeant, 
8  Cowen,  139. 

2  McDaniels  v.  Commonwealth,  G  Bush.  326. 
«  Neal' s  Case,  22  Gratt.  917. 

4  Enbanks  v.  State,  3  Hersk.  488. 


72  GUESTS,   WAGERS,    AND    GAMES. 

aueath  the  table — often  the  wrong  anes  !  Then  what 
gigglin'  amang  the  lasses !  what  amiable,  nay,  love 
quarrels  between  pairtners!  jokin'  an'  jeestin',  and 
tauntin'  an'  toozlin' — the  cawnel  blawn  out,  an'  the 
sound  of  a  thousan'  kisses.  That's  caird-playin'  in 
the  kintra,  Mr.  North,  and  where's  the  man  amang 
ye  that  '11  daur  to  say  that  it 's  no'  a  pleasant  pas- 
time o'  a  winter  nicht,  when  the  snaw  is  a  cumin' 
doon  the  hun,  or  the  speat  's  roarin'  amang  the 
mirk  mountains?  " 

"Give  us  that  in  English,"  said  the  forward 
young  man,  as  he  left  the  room. 

***** 

There  was  a  door  between  our  bedroom  and  that 
adjoining.  Upon  taking  possession,  we  tried  it ;  it 
appeared  fast,  but  the  key  was  not  on  our  side  and 
the  bolt  was  hors  du  combat. 

My  wife  had  retired  for  the  night,  and  was  rap- 
idly approaching  that  moment  when  the  rustling 
silk,  the  embroidered  skirt,  the  pannier,  the  braids, 
and  elaborately  arranged  coiffure  are  exchanged  for 
a  robe  de  nuit  of  virgin  white  and  a  bob  of  hair  on 
the  head,  simplex  numditiis.  Suddenly  the  door 
between  the  two  rooms  creaked,  squeaked,  and 
opened,  and  a  creature  clad  in  man's  attire  pro- 
truded his  head.  When,  however,  he  saw  that  the 
room  was  occupied  he  drew  back,  laughing  to  him- 
self as  he  locked  the  door. 

On  my  arrival  I  found  the  partner  of  my  joys 
and  sorrows  perched  upon  the  bed  like  Patience  on 
a  monument.  Immediately  chambermaids,  house- 
maids, and  waiters  were  summoned,  and  informed 


GUESTS,    WAGERS,     AND    GAMES.  73 

that  the  key  must  be  taken  out  of  that  dreadful 
door  and  placed  in  the  office.  After  his  voyage  of 
discovery,  Paul  Pry  had  gone  out,  so  a  waiter 
entered  the  room,  took  the  key,  and  having  ham- 
pered the  lock  of  P.  P.'s  door,  he  passed  out  via 
our  room,  my  wife  gracefully  retiring  into  a  closet. 
When  we  were  quietly  reclining  on  our  downy 
couch  we  heard  our  neighbor  making  fruitless 
efforts  to  regain  his  room;  in  vain  he  summoned 
the  chambermaid  with  her  keys;  in  vain  came 
the  waiter  with  his.  P.  I*,  had  to  pass  the  night 
in  another  apartment,  minus  his  toilet  appoint- 
ments. 

"  What  would  I  have  done,"  asked  my  wife,  "  if 
that  horrid  wretch  had  come  into  the  room?" 

"Oh,  we  could  have  brought  an  action  of  tres- 
pass against  him ; l  for  the  possession  we  have  of 
this  room  is  quite  sufficient  to  entitle  us  to  recover 
against  a  wrong-doer,  although  we  could  not  main- 
tain such  an  action  against  the  hotel-keeper  if  he 
should  enter  for  any  proper  purpose."  2 

"But  that  would  not  be  a  very  great  satisfac- 
tion," said  my  wife. 

"  Well,  it  is  the  best  we  could  do,  for  we  could 
not  summon  to  our  aid  the  good  spirits  that  inter- 
fered on  behalf  of  the  Lady  Godiva  to  punish 
Peeping  Tom." 

"  But  what  if  he  had  assaulted  me  ?  "  i*he  queried. 

"  Well,  I  am  afraid  I  would  have  had  to  settle 
the  matter  with  him,  for  an  innkeeper  is  not  bound 

1  Graham  «;.  Peat,  1  East,  246. 

2  Doyle  v.  Walker,  20  U  C.  R.  502. 

7. 


74  GUESTS,   WAGERS,    AND    GAMES. 

to  keep  safe  the  bodies  of  his  guests,1  but  merely 
their  baggage ;  that  is,  such  articles  of  necessary 
or  personal  convenience  as  are  usually  carried  by 
travelers  for  their  own  use,  the  facts  and  circum- 
stances of  each  case  deciding  what  these  articles 
may  be.2  Hush !  what  is  that?  " 

"  A  mosquito." 

"  Well,  I  must  kill  it." 

"  Never  mind,"  urged  my  wife.  "  Spare  the 
little  creature." 

"  I  can't  stand  their  bites  any  more  than  my  bet- 
ters, and  others  who  have  gone  before.  When 
they  pierced  the  boots  of  the  Father  of  his  Country 
in  the  New  Jersey  marshes,  that  exemplary  indi- 
vidual indulged  in  bad  language  ;  they  drove  back 
the  army  of  Julian  the  Apostate,  or  apostle,  as  Lord 
Kenyon  called  him;  they  compelled  Sapor,  the 
Persian,  to  raise  the  siege  of  Nisibes,  stinging  his 
elephants  and  camels  into  madness ;  they  render 
some  pai*ts  of  the  banks  of  the  Po  uninhabitable, 
and  cause  people  in  some  countries  to  sleep  in  pits 
with  nothing  but  their  heads  above  ground.  How, 
then,  can  you  expect  me  to  lie  quietly  here  and 
wait  to  have  their  horrid  war-whoop  sung  in  mine 
ears,  as  they  dance  in  giddy  mazes  from  side  to 
side,  ere  they  plunge  their  sharp  stilettos  into  my 
shrinking  flesh  ?  " 

Forthwith  I  arose,  lit  the  gas,  and  wandered 
round  and  round  the  room,  a  white-stoled  acolyte 
of  science,  with  a  towel  in  my  hand,  ready  to  take 

1  Cayle's  Case,  8  Co.  32. 

2  Lasseen  v.  Clark,  37  Ga.  242. 


GUESTS,   WAGEBS,    AND    GAMES.  75 

the  life  of  any  member  of  the  extensive  family  of 
Culex  Pipiens.  Long  was  the  search  after  the 
tireless  musician,  blowing  his  own  trumpet  as  en- 
thusiastically as  any  other  musical  genius.  My  wife 
mocked  me  as  I  danced  about,  flipping  to  the  right 
and  to  the  left ;  but  at  last  Mrs.  Mosquito,  swan- 
like,  sang  a  song,  which  (to  me,  at  least)  was  her 
sweetest,  as  it  was  her  last. 


CHAPTER  V. 
SAFES   AND   BAGGAGE. 

Shortly  after  this,  while  traveling  in  a  palace  car, 
and  during  the  night,  Mrs.  Lawyer  lost  some  of  her 
paraphernalia,  and  felt  strongly  inclined  to  make  a 
row  about  it ;  but  I  quoted  the  sublime  words  of 
somebody  or  other,  "Let  us  have  peace,''  and  then 
told  her  that  the  owners  of  sleeping  cars — who  re- 
ceive pay  in  advance  from  travelers  merely  for  the 
sleeping  accommodations  afforded  by  their  cars, 
and  this  only  from  a  particular  class  of  persons,  and 
fora  particular  berth,  and  for  a  particular  trip — are 
not  liable  as  innkeepers  for  money  or  property  that 
may  be  stolen  from  the  lodgers  on  their  cars  ;  and 
that,  as  they  only  furnish  sleeping  accommodation 
for  travelers  who  have  already  paid  the  railway 
company — over  whose  line  the  cars  run — for  their 
transportation,  and  receive  no  part  of  the  fare  paid 
for  transportation,  they  are  not  common  carriers, 
nor  are  they  liable  for  property  lost  or  stolen  from 
their  carriages.  Mr.  Chester  M.  Smith,  who  lost 
$1,180  on  the  Pullman  car  "Missouri,"  in  the  State 
of  Illinois,  in  December,  1872,  was  the  innocent 
cause  of  the  enunciation  of  the  law  upon  this  point. 
The  court  held  that  a  Pullman  car  is  not  a  com- 
mon inn — that  it  does  not  accommodate  persons 
indiscriminately — does  not  furnish  victual  and  lodg- 
ing, but  only  lodging  —  affords  no  accommoda- 

C76] 


SATES    AND    BAGGAG|!.  77 

tion  but  a  berth  and  bed,  and  a  place  and  conven- 
iences for  toilet  purposes — does  not  receive  pay  for 
caring,  nor  undertake  to  care,  for  the  goods  of 
travelers;  but  the  accommodation  afforded  is  the 
result  of  an  express  contract,  and  that  the  liabili- 
ties of  innkeepers  should  not  be  extended  to  others.i 
We  had  passed  from  one  State  into  another,  and 
had  now  taken  up  our  quarters  at  a  magnificent  hotel 
(its  name  will  not  be  mentioned,  for  I  do  not  desire 
to  injure  any  of  the  other  houses).  As  we  stepped 
out  of  the  cab,  we  entered  a  vast  and  handsome 
office  of  white  marble,  and  passed  up  to  the  splendid 
pai-lors  and  luxurious  bed-rooms  above.  The  way 
I  wrote  our  names  in  the  register,  and  asked  for 
dinner  in  our  private  sitting-room,  led  the  gentle- 
manly clerk  to  believe  that  myself  and  Mrs.  Lawyer 
had  but  lately  entered  into  a  partnership  for  weal 
and  woe ;  this  I  found  when  the  elegantly  attired 
waiters  served  our  dinner.  The  whole  service  was 
one  continued  tribute  to  Love.  On  the  soup  tureen 
were  little  Cupids,  training  a  huge  turtle ;  on  the 
fish  plates,  as  mermaids  and  mermen,  they  were 
riding  on  salmon  and  dolphins ;  on  the  other  dishes, 
these  naked  little  rascals  flew  about  among  beau- 
tiful birds,  hid  under  strawberry  vines,  or  swung 
in  spider-web  hammocks  from  sprays  of  wild  black- 
berry ;  they  dug  in  ravines  like  mountain  gnomes, 
and  pried  and  lifted  carrots  with  comical  machi- 
nery, as  though  they  were  great  bars  and  ingots  of 
yellow  gold.  Some  of  the  dish-covers  were  shaped 
like  cabbages,  and  Cupids  peeped  from  under  every 

i  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.  v.  Smith,  73  111.  360. 


78  SAFES    ANT)    BAGGAGE. 

curling  leaf ;  others,  again,  gathered  the  vintage 
and  trod  the  grapes.  Last  of  all,  on  the  dessert 
service  was  represented  the  marriage  of  the  queen 
of  the  flower  fairies,  each  piece  a  different  flower, 
with  a  love  perched  on  it,  some  with  torches,  others 
with  instruments  of  music;  while  the  central  stand 
represented  the  ceremony  itself;  a  scarlet  cardinal- 
flower  was  saying  mass,  and  on  the  highest  point 
of  the  dish,  (which  represented  a  church  tower,)  a 
chorus  of  these  sprites  of  Venus  were  tugging  at  the 
stamens  of  a  chime  of  fuchsias,  like  boys  merrily 
pulling  the  ropes  of  wedding  bells.  Each  piece 
differed  from  the  others,  but  there  was  a  love  in 
every  one.  My  wife  was  in  raptures  over  the 
beautiful  china,  the  exquisite  elves,  the  graceful 
flowers,  the  delicate  sentiments,  the  poetry  in  the 
artist's  soul  thus  moulded  into  form — hardened 
into  a  thing  of  beauty,  a  joy  forever.  She  could 
not  restrain  her  exclamations  of  delight,  as  course 
succeeded  course,  even  in  the  presence  of  the  sedate 
attendants.  Each  new  beauty  called  forth  a  new 
expression  of  wonder  and  pleasure.  She  would 
Bcarce  allow  anything  on  her  plate,  so  anxious  was 
she  to  study  the  devices  and  designs.  I  was  calmer, 
being  older,  hungrier,  less  ethereal,  and  feeling  an 
inner  consciousness  that  a  heavy  bill  would  be  the 
successor  of  these  fairy  scenes. 

Even  this  dinner  came  to  an  end,  long  though 
we  toyed  over  the  dessert.  The  china  afforded  a 
ceaseless  topic  of  conversation,  until  at  length  little 
fairies  of  another  kind  began  to  hang  upon  the  long 
black  lashes  which  veiled  my  wife's  beautiful  brown 
eyes,  and  wo  passed  into  our  bed-chamber. 


SATES    AND    BAGGAGE.  79 

Over  the  mantel-piece  of  our  dormitory  hung  a 
card,  on  which  was  printed  the  following: 

"  TAKE    NOTICK. 

"  This  building  is  fire-proof. 

"Several  robberies  having  taken  place  during 
the  night,  in  the  principal  hotels,  the  proprietor 
respectfully  requests  all  visitors  to  use  the  night- 
bolt. 

"Money,  jewelry,  or  articles  of  value  arc  re- 
quested to  be  left  at  the  bar,  otherwise  the  pro- 
prietor will  not  hold  himself  responsible  for  any 
loss.  "A.  B.,  Proprietor." 

My  wife,  who  was  rapidly  increasing  in  legal 
knowledge  and  acuteness  under  my  able  instruc- 
tions, and  was  filled  with  the  romantic  idea  of  be- 
coming a  veritable  helpmate  to  me  in  my  profes- 
sion as  well  as  in  the  expenditure  of  my  money, 
after  reading  the  notice  asked  me  if  I  was  going  to 
hand  over  my  valuables.  I  told  her  that  Pollock, 
C.  B.,  had  announced  to  the  world  that  it  was  his 
opinion  that  such  a  notice  did  not  apj,ly  to  those 
articles  of  jewelry  which  a  person  usually  carries 
with  him — his  watch,  for  instance — because,  as  the 
learned  judge  puts  it,  such  an  article  would  be  of 
little  service  to  the  owner  if  it  were  nightly  stowed 
away  in  the  hotel  safe.1  His  lordship,  however,  was 
inclined  to  think  that  if  the  watch  were  a  richly 
jeweled  one,  set  in  valuable  diamonds,  it  would  be 
wiser  to  give  it  to  the  proprietor  to  keep."2 

i Morgan  v.  Kavey,  G  HuiL  &  1ST.  265.  »Ibi<L 


80  SAFES    AND    BAGGAGE. 

"But  that  is  an  English  decision,"  remarked  my 
wife,  filled  with  the  genuine  occidental  opinion  of 
oriental  notions. 

"Well,  supposing  it  is,"  I  made  answer,  "it  is  in 
accord  with  the  American;  and  a  New  York  judge 
once  said  that  although  a  watch,  a  gold  pen,  and 
pencil-case  might  in  some  sense  be  called  jewels, 
still  they  should  be  considered  part  of  a  traveler's 
personal  clothing,  or  apparel  —  and  one  after  retir- 
ing to  rest  for  the  night  is  not  expected  to  send 
down  his  ordinary  clothing  or  apparel  to  be  depos- 
ited in  the  safe." 1 

"But,"  continued  Mrs.  Lawyer,  "this  notice  is 
not  exactly  the  same  as  what  one  generally  sees;  it 
says  nothing  about  the  proprietor  not  being  liable 
for  the  loss  of  things  above  a  certain  sum." 

"  No,"  I  replied,  "  and  it's  all  the  better  for  us ; 
for  if  the  notice  required  by  law  is  not  properly 
posted  up  in  the  office  and  bedrooms,  the  proprietor 
cannot  claim  the  benefit  of  the  provision  relieving 
him  from  the  liability  imposed  upon  him  by  the 
common  law  of  making  good  all  losses  and  damage 
to  his  guests'  goods  and  property,  unless  caused  by 
act  of  God,  or  of  public  enemies.  It  has  been  held 
in  I<)wa  that  such  a  notice  as  this  one  does  not  af- 
fect the  landlord's  position."  2 

"To  what  extent  can  he  shirk  his  liability?" 
queried  my  wife,  glancing  at  her  large  and  well- 
filled  Saratoga. 

"That  depends  upon  the   particular  statute  of 

1  Giles  v.  Libby,  36  Barr.  70.    But  see  Hyatt  v.  Taylor,  51 
Barb.  032,  and  Rosenplanter  v.  Koessle,  54  N.  Y.  262. 
*Bod\vell  v.  Bragg,  29  Iowa>.232.  .     . ,. .  .  < 


SATES    AND     BAGGAGE.  81 

the  country  or  State  in  which  he  happens  to  live. 
If  there  is  not  a  special  law,  no  notice  will  bind  the 
guest,  unless  it  can  be  proved  that  he  has  seen  it 
before  he  takes  possession  of  his  room,1  or  haa 
assented  to  it.2  In  England,  an  innkeeper,  if  he 
cause  at  least  one  copy  of  the  law,  (printed  in  plain 
type,)  to  be  exhibited  in  a  conspicuous  part  of  the 
hall  or  entrance  to  his  inn,  will  not  be  liable  to 
make  good  any  loss  of  or  injury  to  goods  or  property 
brought  to  the  inn,  to  a  greater  extent  than  £30, 
(unless  it  be  a  horse  or  other  animal,  or  any  gear 
appertaining  thereto,  or  any  carriage)  except  when 
such  goods  have  been  stolen,  lost,  or  injured, 
through  the  willful  act,  default,  or  neglect  of  the 
publican,  or  any  servant  in  his  employ;  or  when 
such  goods  have  been  deposited  expressly  for  safe- 
keeping with  mine  host,  who,  in  such  case,  may 
require  them  to  be  placed  in  a  box,  or  other  recep- 
tacle, fastened  and  sealed  up  'by  the  guest.3  In 
New  York,  the  law  is  very  similar,4  being  to  the 
effect  that  the  hotel-keeper  shall  not  be  liable  for 
loss  of  money,  jewels,  ornaments,  or  valuables, 
when  he  shall  have  provided  a  safe  for  the  custody 
of  such  property,  and  shall  have  posted  a  notice  to 
that  effect  in  the  room  occupied  by  the  guest,  and 
the  guest  shall  have  neglected  to  deposit  sucii 
property  in  the  safe.5  So  particular  arc  the  courts 

1  Morgan  v.  Ravey,  30  L.  J.  Ex.  13) . 

2  Bernstein  v.  Sweeney,  33  N.  Y.  Sup.  Ct.  271. 

3 Imp.  Stat.,  26  and  27  Viet.,  cliap.  41,  sec.  1.  A  siraikr 
statute  is  in  force  in  Ontario,  only  the  money  is  limited  to 
forty  dollars.  (37  Viet.  O.,  chap  11,  sees.  1-4. 

4  Statutes  of  1855,  chap.  421. 

6  Wisconsin  has  a  like  law.    (Laws  of  1864,  chap.  318.) 


82  SAFES    AND    BAGGAGE. 

upon  this  point,  that  when  the  landlord  of  the  Old 
Ship  Hotel,  Brighton,  England,  unintentionally  had 
the  notice  misprinted,  so  that  the  little  word  act 
was  omitted  in  the  sentence,  which  should  have 
been,  (as  I  have  just  stated)  'where  such  property 
shall  have  been  stolen,  lost,  or  injured  through  the 
willful  act,  default,  or  neglect  of  such  innkeeper, 
or  any  servant  in  his  employ,'  the  Court  of  Appeal 
held  that,  as  the  notice  contained  no  statement 
which  admitted  the  continuance  of  the  common- 
law  liability  for  goods  or  property  stolen,  lost,  or 
injured  through  the  willful  act  of  the  innkeeper  or 
his  servant,  the  proprietor  was  not  protected.  But 
Lord  Cairns  carefully  said  that  he  was  not  pre- 
pared to  hold  that  the  omission,  in  good  faith,  of  a 
word  or  two,  not  material  to  the  sense  and  to  the 
operation  of  the  statute,  would  have  such  a  disas- 
trous effect." l 

"  My  husband,  remember 

'  Brevity's  the  soul  of  wit, 
And  tediousness  the  limbs  and  outward  flourishes,' 

and  be  brief.  How  can  my  poor  brain  hold  all  that 
you  have  said  ?  " 

"  Don't  be  alarmed,  my  dear,  there  is  doubtless 
plenty  of  room  in  your  brain  yet.  But  I  was  going 
on  to  say  that  though  there  is  a  tendency  in  these 
degenerate  days  to  lessen  the  great  responsibility 
once  imposed  upon  these  publicans  and  sinners,  and 
to  insist  upon  greater  care  on  the  part  of  the 
guests,  still  statutes  limiting  the  common-law  lia- 

i  Spice  v.  Bacon,  L.  K.  2  Ex.  Div.  463;  16  A.  L.  J.  385. 


SAFES    AND    BAGGAGE.  83 

bility  of  innkeepers  should  not  be  extended  to 
include  property  not  fairly  within  the  terms  of  the 
acts.  Where,  for  -instance,  as  in  the  New  York 
act,  money,  jewels,  or  ornaments  are  exempted, 
then  all  property  of  a  different  kind,  including  all 
things  useful  and  necessary  for  the  comfort  and 
convenience  of  the  guest — all  things  usually  carried 
and  worn  as  part  of  the  ordinary  apparel  and  out- 
fit, as  well  as  all  things  ordinarily  used  or  suitable 
to  be  used  by  travelers  in  doors  or  out,  are  left  in 
etatu  quo  ante  the  statute." 

"  And  what  may  that  be  ?  "  asked  Mrs.  L. 

"  At  the  risk  of  the  innkeeper."  1 

"  But  would  not  a  watch  be  considered  a  jewel 
or  an  ornament?" 

"  The  law  is  very  watchful — " 

"Very  watchful,  indeed,  when  it  has  so  many 
watch  cases  that  it  considers  pretty  little  Genevas 
neither  jewels  nor  ornaments,"  murmured  my  wife 
'eotto  voce. 

"  The  law  is  very  watchful,"  I  went  on,  "  over 
benighted  travelers,  and  has  decided  that  it  is.  not;  2 
nor  is  a  watch  and  chain,3  although,  by  the  way, 
the  Wisconsin  judges  have  decided  that  an  inn- 
keeper is  not  liable  for  the  loss  of  a  silver  or  a  gold 
watch  not  handed  over  for  safe  keeping,  their  act 
speaking  of  articles  of  gold  and  silver  manufacture.* 

iRemaly  v.  Leland,  43  N.  Y.  538;  Kellogg  v.  Sweeney,  1 
Lans.  N.  Y.  397. 

2Remaly  v.  Leland,  supra. 

8  Bernstein  v.  Sweeney,  35  N.  Y.  271 ;  Krohn  v .  Sweeney,  2 
Daly,  N.  Y.  200;  Milford  r.  Wesley,  1  Wilson,  (Ind.)  119. 

4  Stewart  v.  Parsons,  24  Wis.  241. 


84  SAFES    AND    B AGO AGE. 

The  exemption  is  intended  to  apply  only  to  such 
an  amount  of  money  and  to  such  jewels  and  orna- 
ments or  valuables,  as  the  landlord  himself,  if  a 
prudent  person  and  traveling,  would  put  in  a  safe 
(if  convenient)  when  retiring  at  night.  No  one, 
possessed  of  half  a  grain  of  that  scarce  commodity, 
common  sense,  would  suppose  that  it  was  the  inten- 
tion of  the  act  to  exempt  the  hotel  proprietors  from 
their  old  common-law  liability,  unless  the  traveler 
emptied  his  pockets  of  every  cent  of  money  and 
deposited  it,  with  his  watch  and  pencil-case,  in  the 
safe,  for  perchance  he  might  want  these  identical 
articles  ere  sweet  sleep  his  eyelids  closed.1  If, 
however,  the  innkeeper  has  complied  with  the 
requirements  of  the  act,  he  is  not  liable  for  jewelry 
stolen  from  the  bedroom,  even  though  the  guest 
has  not  been  guilty  of  negligence,  provided  he  has 
had  time  and  opportunity  to  make  the  deposit.2 
My  old  friend,  Mrs.  Rosenplanter,  was  terribly 
unfortunate  in  this  respect.  In  July,  1863,  she 
and  her  worthy  spouse  were  en  route  from  Trenton 
Falls  to  Saratoga,  and  arrived  at  the  Delavan 
House,  Albany,  at  three  in  the  afternoon.  As  din- 
ner was  on  the  table,  they  at  once  dressed  and  went 
to  dine.  In  about  twenty  minutes  they  returned 
to  their  room  and  found  that  in  the  meantime  their 
trunk  had  been  broken  open  and  $300  worth  of 
jewelry  taken  out.  My  friend  sued  the  proprietor, 
but  the  court  ungallantly  considered  that  she  had 
had  sufficient  time  and  opportunity  to  make  the  de- 

1  Giles  v.  Libbey,  36  Bar.  70. 

2  Rosenplanter  v.  Boessle,  M  X.  Y.  262. 


SATES    AND    BAGGAGE.  85 

posit,  (though  she  had  not  been  there  an  hour)  and 
BO  could  not  recover;  akhough  the  judge  admitted 
that  no  person,  under  such  circumstances,  would 
have  been  likely  to  have  handed  over  his  valuables 
to  the  innkeeper,  and  that  there  must  always  be  a 
brief  period  after  the  arrival  of  a  guest  before  he 
can  make  the  deposit,  and  that  during  those  golden 
moments  the  statute  affords  the  publican  no  pro- 
tection. And,  by  the  way,  I  remember  that  in  this 
case  the  court  seemed  to  think  that  if  a  guest,  on 
retiring  for  the  night,  removes  a  watch  or  jewelry 
from  his  person,  or  leaves  money  in  his  pocket,  and 
neglects  to  deposit  the  same  in  the  safe,  the  hotel- 
keeper,  if  he  has  complied  with  the  act,  is  exempt 
from  all  liability  in  case  of  loss."  l 

"  You  said,"  remarked  Mrs.  Lawyer,  whom  the 
mysteries  of  the  toilet  had  revived,  "  you  said  that 
if  the  innkeeper  put  up  his  notice  he  would  not  be  lia- 
ble to  make  good  any  loss  of  goods  or  property.  Sure- 
ly, if  a  watch  is  neither  an  ornament  nor  a  jewel, 
within  the  meaning  of  the  act,2  it  is  goods  or  prop- 
erty, else  it  is  not  good  for  much." 

"It  is  very  questionable  whether  the  words 
'goods  or  property  '  include  the  necessary  baggage 
of  a  traveler,  his  watch  or  personal  effects,  or  such 
money  as  a  man  in  his  travels  usually  carries  with 
him ;  in  fact,  down  South  it  was  held  that  it  did 
not  comprehend  baggage."  3 

"Well,  what  would   you   call   baggage?"   per^ 

1  Kosenplanter  v.  Koessle,  54  N.  Y.  262;  Bendetson  v.  French, 
46  N.  Y.  distinguished. 

2  11  Can.  Law  Jour.  N.  S.  103. 
»  Pope  v.  Hall,  14  La.  An.  324. 

8. 


86  SAFES    AND    BAGGAGE. 

sisted  my  wife.  "  It  would  be  worth  while  knowing 
that,  if  an  innkeeper  is  always  responsible  therefor." 

"  Just  wait  until  I  comfortably  settle  myself,  and 
I  will  dilate  on  that  fruitful  topic  until  you  are  sat- 
isfied." 

"  What  a  base  slanderer  is  Jules  Verne,"  said  my 
spouse,  as  she  daintily  nestled  between  the  sheets. 

"  What  do  you  mean  ?  "  I  asked. 

"  Don't  you  remember  that  he  says  that  American 
beds  rival  marble  or  granite  tables  for  hardness.  I 
am  sure  he  never  stopped  at  a  good  hotel." 

"Now  for  a  Caudle  lecture  as  to  the  baggage,"  1 
said.  "  Imprimis,  whatever  a  traveler  on  this  sub- 
lunary planet  takes  with  him  for  his  own  personal 
care  and  convenience,  or  even  for  his  instruction 
and  amusement,1  according  to  the  habits  and  wants 
of  the  station  of  society  to  which  he  belongs,  either 
with  reference  to  the  immediate  necessities  or  the 
ultimate  purpose  of  his  wanderings,  must  be  con- 
sidered personal  luggage ;  2  and  the  rules  of  law 
governing  the  innkeeper's  liability  for  the  safety  of 
a  guest's  baggage,  are  the  same  as  those  which  reg- 
ulate the  responsibility  of  common  carriers  as  to  a 
passenger's  baggage.3  Articles  of  jewelry,  such  as 
you  would  usually  wear,  are  baggage;4  but  not 
the  jewels  and  regalia  of  a  society.5  A  watch,6 

1  Hawkins  v.  Hoffman,  6  Hill,  586. 

2  Macrow  v.  G.  W.  Rw.  L.  R.  6  Q.  B.  622. 
a  Wilkins  v.  Earle,  18  Abb.  N.  Y.  190. 

4  Brooke  v.  Pickwick,  4  Bing.  218;  McGill  v.  Rowand,  3 
Penn.  St.  451. 

6  Kevins  v.  Bay  State  S.  B.  Co.  4  Bosw.  589. 

6  Jones  v.  Voorhes,  10  Ohio,  145  ;  Miss.  C.  Rw.  v.  Kennedy, 
41  Miss.  471. 


SATES    AND    BAGGAGE.  87 

except  in  Tennessee  ;  1  finger-rings,2  but  not  silver 
spoons,3  come  within  the  same  category.  One  man 
was  allowed  to  have  two  gold  chains,  two  gold 
rings,  a  locket,  and  a  silver  pencil-case."  4 

"  He  must  have  been  on  his  way  to  see  his  sweet- 
heart, I  fancy." 

"Gold  spectacles  are  baggage;5  so  are  opera 
glasses,6  a  silver-mounted  pistol,  even  for  a  Southern 
lady,7  duelling  pistols,8  or  a  gun  ;  9  but  not  a  colt."  10 

"A  horse,  then?"  was  facetiously  queried. 

"  Not  even  a  hobby-horse.11  Brushes  and  razors, 
pens  and  ink,  are  baggage,12  and  perchance  a  pres- 
ent.13 So  are  the  manuscripts  of  a  student  ;  14  but 
not  the  pencil  sketches  of  an  artist;15  on  this  latter 
point,  however,  the  doctors  of  the  law  disagree.  1" 
According  to  one  judge,  a  concertina,  a  flute,  or  a 
fiddle  might  pass  muster  ;  but  his  fellows,  however 
much  music  they  had  in  themselves,  determined 


.  Maxwell,  9  Humphrey,  G21. 
2McCormick  v.  Hudson  River  Rw.  4  E.  D.  Smith,  181. 
3  Giles  v.  Fauntleroy,  13  Md.  12G. 
*Brutz  v.  G.  T.  R.  32  U.  0.  Q.  B.  66. 

5  Re  H.  M.  Wright,  Newberry  Admiralty;  Sasseen  v.  Clark, 
37  Ga.  242. 

6  Toledo  &  Wabash  Riv.  v.  Hammond,  33  Ind.  379. 

7  Sasseen  v.  Clark,  37  Ga.  242. 

8  Wood  v.  Devon,  13  111.  746. 

9  Davis  v.  C.  &  S.  Rw.  10  How.  Pr.  330. 

10  Giles  v.  Fauntleroy,  13  Md.  126. 

11  Hudston  v.  Midland  Rw.  L.  R.  4  Q.  B.  366. 
"Hawkins  r.  Hoffman,  6  Hill,  K  Y.  Rep.  589. 

is  Gt.  W.  Rev.  v.  Shepherd,  8  Ex.  38.    But  see  Bell  v.  Drew, 
4  E.  D.  Smith,  5'J. 

"Hopkins  v.  Westcott,  7  Am.  Law.  Reg.  N.  S.  533. 
iSMytton  v.  Midland  Rw.  4  H.  &  N.  615. 
10  Macro  w  v.  Gt.  W.  Rw.  L.  R.  G  Q.  B.  622,  Cockburn,  C.  J 


88  SAFES    AND    BAGGAGE. 

not  to  be  moved  with  concord  of  sweet  sounds,  so 
they  out-voted  their  musical  confrere.1  Shake- 
speare saith,  '  Let  no  such  man  be  trusted ;'  so,  per- 
chance, we  must  conclude  that  these  judges  were 
astray  in  their  law.  In  Pennsylvania,  a  journeyman 
carpenter  may  take  his  tools  as  baggage,2  though 
in  Ontario  he  cannot,3  any  more  than  a  blacksmith 
can  carry  his  forge,  or  a  farmer  his  plow.  Nor  can 
a  merchant  take  his  wares,4  nor  a  commercial  his 
samples,^  nor  a  banker  his  money,6  nor  a  lawyer  his 
papers,7  though  an  M.  D.  may  take  his  surgical  in- 
struments ;8  nor  may  a  seamstress  carry  her  sewing 
machine,9  nor — Hark ! 

"  What  strain  is  this  that  comes  into  the  room, 
At  midnight,  as  if  yonder  gleaming  light, 

Which  seems  to  wander  like  the  moon, 

Were  seraph-freighted  ?    Now  it  dies  away 

In  a  most  far-off  tremble,  and  is  still ; 
Leaving  a  charmed  silence. 

Hark  !  one  more  dip  of  fingers  in  the  wires  ! 

One  scarce-heard  murmur  struggling  into  sound, 
And  fading  like  a  sunbeam  from  the  ground, 

Or  gilded  vanes  of  dimly  visioned  spires  !  " 

Here  a  fantasia  on  her  nasal  organ  (which  my 
wife  always  carried  with  her,  despite  the  decisions 

1  Brutz  v.  G.  T.  Rw.  32  U.  C.  Q.  B.  66. 

2  Porter  v.  Hildebrand,  14  Pa.  St.  129. 
a  Brutz  v.  G.  T.  K.  supra. 

*  Gilox  v.  Shepherd,  8  Ex.  30;  Pardee  v.  Drew,  25  Wend. 
450;  Shaw  v.  G.  T.  Rw.  7  U.  C.  C.  P.  493. 

5  Belfast  B.  L.  &  C.  Rw.  v.  Keys,  9  Ho.  Lords  Cas.  556; 
Hawkins  v.  Hoffman,  6  Hill,  586. 

e  Phelps  v.  London  &  N.  W.  Rw.  19  C.  B.  N.  S.  321. 

"!  Ibid. 

8  Giles  v.  Fauntleroy,  13  Md.  126. 

»  Brutz  v.  G.  T.  Rw.  supra. 


SAFES    AND    BAGGAGE.  89 

of  anti-musical  judges)  vibrating  unmistakably 
through  the  chamber,  dispelled  the  idea  of  heavenly 
visitants,  and  informed  me  that  my  spouse  had 
journeyed  off  to  that  land  of  Nod,  from  whose 
bourn  no  baggage  returns.  Snoring,  like  yawn- 
ing, is  infectious  —  sometimes ;  and  this  was  one  of 
the  times. 

***** 

"  "Pis  sweet  to  see  the  day  dawn  creeping  grad- 
ual thro'  the  sky,"  and  feel  that  there  is  for  one  yet 
a  little  sleep,  a  little  slumber,  a  little  folding  of  the 
hands  to  sleep ;  but  even  in  the  most  fashionable 
hotel  the  hour  will  at  length  come  when  one  must 
shake  off  dull  sloth  and  burst  the  bonds  of  sleep, 
which  at  night  are  but  as  spider's  webs,  but  in  the 
morning  have  become  even  fetters  of  brass;  and 
that  miserable  hour  came  in  time  to  me. 

When  I  went  down  stairs  to  examine  the  regis- 
ter to  see  who  had  arrived  during  the  night,  I  found 
some  excitement  existing  around  the  office.  On  in- 
quiry, (and  who  except  a  German  savant  ever  beheld 
a  row,  small  or  great,  without  seeking  to  know  the 
wherefore  thereof,)  I  learned  that  a  gent  had  the 
day  before  given  the  clerk  a  pocket-book  to  keep, 
and  that  it  had  been  stolen  out  of  the  desk ;  the 
owner  was  demanding  restitution,  dollar  for  dollar 
and  cent  for  cent,  if  not  eye  for  eye  and  tooth  for 
tooth.  The  landlord  said  that  the  man  had  been 
negligent  in  not  telling  the  clerk  there  was  money 
in  the  book. 

"  No,  I  wasn't,"  was  the  reply,  "  there  was  only 
$136  in  it;  'and  what  but  money  would  you  expect. 


90  SATES    AND    BAGGAGE. 

to  be  in  a  pocket-book  —  a  tooth-pick  ?  —  a  cigar  ? 
I  know  that  in  Iowa  an  innkeeper  had  to  cash  up 
in  a  similar  case,1  and  I'll  make  you  do  it  if  there 
is  law  or  justice  in  this  part  of  the  American  eagle's 
eyry." 

"In  Kentucky,"  said  a  by-stanJer,  who  seemed 
to  hail  from  that  State,  "  an  hotel-keeper  was  held 
liable  for  the  loss  by  robbery  of  pocket  money  re- 
tained by  a  guest  in  his  own  possession."  2 

"And  in  Maryland,"  said  another  Southerner, 
"it  has  been  decided  that  a  traveler  need  not 
deposit  in  the  office  safe  any  money  reasonably 
necessary  for  his  expenses  that  he  may  have  with 
him."  3 

"Yes,"  I  said,  "there  are  other  cases,  also,  which 
appear  to  establish  the  point  that  a  sojourner  at  an 
hotel  may  keep  in  his  pocket  or  in  his  room  money 
enough  to  pay  his  daily  way,  and  that  if  his  purse 
be  surreptitiously  disposed  of,  the  landlord  must 
"make  good  his  loss ; 4  yet  still  there  is  a  very  late 
New  York  decision,  where  my  friend  Hyatt  found 
to  his  cost,  that  where  a  landlord  provides  a  safe,' 
and  puts  up  the  usual  notices  about  it,  and  the  vis- 
itor chooses  not  to  place  his  money  in  it,  the  pro- 
prietor of  the  establishment  is  not  responsible  for 
the  loss  of  any  of  the  cash,  not  even  for  what  would 

JShoecraft  v.  Bailey,  25  Iowa,  553. 

2  Weiseinger  v.  Taylor,  1  Bush,  275. 

3Maltby  v.  Chapman,  25  Md.  307;  a  decision  under  Md. 
Code,  art.  70,  sees.  5,  6. 

^Taylor  r.  Monnot,  4  Duer,  (N.  Y.)  116;  Van  Wyck  v.  How- 
ard, 12  How.  (N.  Y.)  Pr.  147;  Stanton  v.  Lelaud,  i  E.  D.  Smith, 
(N.  Y.)  88;  Simou  v.  Miller,  7  La.  Au.  360. 


SATES    AND    BAGGAGE.  91 

be  required  for  the  guest's  ordinary  traveling  ex- 
penses." i 

"You  speak  of  money  enough  for  one's  daily 
wants  and  traveling  expenses  being  all  that  for 
which  an  innkeeper  is  liable,"  said  a  gentleman 
who  had  hitherto  been  a  quiet  listener. 

"  Well,  sir,  I  do  not  like  to  speak  dogmatically, 
but  it  seems  that  the  tendency  of  some  modern  de- 
cisions is  to  hold  that  the  innkeeper  should  not  be 
liable  for  any  money  beyond  that  amount,  even 
though  put  in  a  safe,  unless  a  special  contract  has 
been  made,  or  it  has  been  actually  delivered  to  the 
proprietor  or  his  servant,  with  notice  not  only  of 
the  kind  of  property  it  was,  but  also  of  the  amount. 
It  is  not  sufficient  to  mark  a  package  '  money,'  for 
it  is  argued  that  it  would  be  highly  unjust,  and  not 
founded  upon  any  principle  on  which  an  innkeep- 
er's liability  rests,  for  a  traveler  to  bring  into  an 
inn,  unobserved,  any  amount  of  valuables,  without 
notice  to  the  innkeeper,  and  hold  him  responsible 
for  their  safe  keeping.  There  should  be  a  restric- 
tion or  qualification  of  such  liability,  if  it  exists; 
and  that  must  be  a  warning  to  the  innkeeper  of  the 
extra  risk  he  is  about  to  run.2  But  the  Court  of 
Appeals  in  New  York  State  takes  a  different  view, 
and  holds  that  if  one  complies  with  the  law,  and 
deposits  his  money  in  the  safe,  the  innkeeper  is  lia- 
ble for  the  full  amount,  irrespective  of  the  question 
whether  or  not  it  was  all  required  for  the  purposes 
of  the  journey.3 

1  Hyatt  v.  Taylor,  51  Barb.  N.  Y.  632;  42  N.  Y.  259. 

2  Wilkins  v.  Earle,  18  Abb.  N.  Y.  190. 
8  Wilkins  v.  Earle,  M  N.  Y.  172. 


92  SAFES    AND    BAGGAGE. 

"  And,  I  might  add,"  said  my  interlocutor,  "  the 
celebrated  Story  made  no  exception,  and  seemed  to 
consider  it  one  of  the  ABC  principles  of  law  that 
an  innkeeper  is  liable  for  the  loss  of  the  money  of 
his  guest,  stolen  from  his  room,  as  well  as  for  his 
goods  and  chattels,  and  that  such  liability  extends 
to  all  the  money  of  the  guest  placed  within  the  inn, 
and  is  not  confined  to  such  sums  only  as  are  neces- 
sary and  designed  for  ordinary  traveling  expenses.i 
Then,  sir,  our  great  Chancellor  Kent  lays  it  down 
as  admitting  of  no  perad  vent  are,  that  an  innkeeper 
is  bound  absolutely  to  keep  safe  the  property  of  his 
guest  within  the  inn,  whether  he  knows  of  it  or  not, 
and  that  his  responsibility  extends  to  all  his  guest's 
servants,  and  to  all  the  goods,  chattels,  and  moneys 
of  the  guest,  their  safe  custody  being  part  of  the 
contract  to  feed  and  lodge  for  a  suitable  reward.2 
If  you  are  not  satisfied  with  the  words  of  these  men 
— alike  the  pride  and  the  ornament  of  America — 
let  us  cross  the  ocean  and  hear  what  Sir  Wm. 
Blackstone  saith  ;  he  speaketh  after  this  wise :  that 
an  innkeeper's  negligence  in  suffering  a  robbery  of 
his  guest  is  an  implied  consent  to  the  robbery,  and 
he  must  make  good  the  loss.3  Then  Lord  Tenter- 
den  held  that  there  was  no  distinction  between 
money  and  goods;  and  all  the  other  judges  of  the 
court  said  'amen.'  "  4 

"  Excuse  my  interrupting  you  in  your  interesting 
remarks,"  said  J. 

1  Story's  Commentaries,  sec.  481. 

2  Commentaries,  sec.  470. 
a  i  Black.  Com.  430. 

*  Kent  v.  Slmckard,  2  B.  &  Ad.  803. 


SAFES    AND    BAGGAGE.  93 

"  Quite  excusable,  sir,  for  I  arn  only  speaking 
in  the  cause  of  right,  and  because  I  think  some 
judges  are  inclined  to  cut  loose  from  the  safe  moor- 
ings of  the  old  common  law,  rendered  dear  to  us  by 
the  adjudications  of  the  learned  men  of  the  Bench 
for  generations  past,  both  in  the  old  and  new 
worlds;  and  I  am  satisfied  that  a  contrary  doctrine 
will  be  terrible  in  its  effects  in  this  great  commer- 
cial community  of  ours,  where  our  business  men 
spend  so  large  a  portion  of  their  time  at  inns  in 
pursuit  of  their  calling.1  But  what  were  you  going 
to  say?" 

"  Simply,"  I  remarked,  "  that  in  the  case  before 
Tenterden  the  amount  lost  was  only  £.50,  and  it  was 
stated  to  have  been  kept  to  meet  daily  expenses 
only.  He  said  he  could  see  no  distinction  in  this  re- 
spect between  an  innkeeper  and  a  carrier;  and 
there  are  many  cases  to  the  effect  that  a  carrier  will 
not  be  responsible  for  any  money  of  a  passenger 
except  what  is  needful  for  traveling  purposes  and 
personal  use,2  unless  the  loss  was  occasioned  by  the 
gross  negligence  of  the  carrier." 

"Well,  other  English  judges  have  likewise  held 
that  an  innkeeper's  liability  is  not  restricted  merely 
to  the  guests'  travelling  expenses ; 3  and  if  we  re- 
cross  the  mighty  ocean  we  find  our  judges  in  firm 
accord  with  their  confreres."  4 

1  Per  McCann,  J.,  Wilkins  v.  Earle. 

2  Orange  Co.  Bank  v.  Brown,  9  Wend.  85;  Weed  v.  Saratoga 
&  Sch.  Rw.  19  Wend.  524 ;  Red.  on  Railways,   vol.  2,  pp. 
55,58. 

3  Coggs  r.   Barnard,   1  Sm.    Leading  Cases,  309  ;  Lane  v. 
Cotton,  12  Mod.  487;  Whartou  on  Innkeepers,  97. 

4  Cole  v.  Goodwin,  19  Wend. 


94  SATES    AND    BAGGAGE. 

"But,"  I  said,  "bat  in  one  case  the  amount 
was  only  two  hundred  dollars,1  and  in  another  it 
was  but  twenty-five  dollars.2  And  in  still  another 
case  decided,  as  you  say,  although  the  cash  lost  was 
more  than  sufficient  to  pay  the  expenses  of  the  man 
from  whom  it  was  taken,  still  it  was  not  his  own ; 
he  merely  held  it  to  pay  others,  who  were  stopping  at 
the  same  house,  and  were  witnesses  in  a  suit  which 
the  money-holder  was  superintending,  or  to  pay 
their  expenses  at  the  inn."  3 

"  On  the  other  hand,"  said  the  defender  of  the 
rights  of  the  people,  "  in  a  California  hotel  there 
Was  this  notice:  'Deposit  your  valuables  and 
money  in  the  safe  at  the  office ; '  and  a  guest  ac- 
cordingly deposited  a  large  amount  of  gold  dust 
and  coin,  which  the  proprietor  received  without 
objection.  Afterwards,  the  clerk  was  knocked 
down  and  the  safe  robbed,  it  not  being  locked,  and 
the  publican  was  held  liable  for  the  whole  amount.4 
And  where  a  man  had  stolen  from  his  room  a  pack- 
age of  jewelry,  which  the  clerk  had  told  him  would 
be  quite  safe  there,  the  host  was  held  liable,  even 
in  New  York  State.5  And  so,  in  Kentucky,  where 
a  safe  was  robbed  by  a  discharged  clerk,  although 
in  this  last  case  the  innkeeper  had  told  the  guest 
that  he  would  not  be  responsible  for  any  money  put 
in  it.6  It  seems  to  me  to  be  somewhat  absurd  that 

iQuintin?;.  Courtney,  Hay.  (N.  G.)  41. 

2  Giles  v.  Libby,  33  Barb.  70. 

3  Berkshire  Woollen  Co.  v.  Proctor,  7  Gush.  417. 

4  Pinkerton  v.  AVoodward,  33  Cal.  557. 
5Bendeton  v.  French,  44  Barb.  31. 

6 Woodward  v.  Bird,  4  Bush.  (Ky.)  510. 


SAFES    AND    BAGGACJE.  95 

the  law  should  say  that  unless  you  deposit  youi 
money  in  the  hotel  safe  the  proprietor  will  not  be 
liable  for  its  loss,  and  then  when  you  have  placed 
it  in  the  absolute  and  immediate  control  of  the  inn- 
keeper, and,  perhaps,  his  dishonest  servant,  you 
should  be  met  the  next  day,  when  asking  for  your 
own,  by  the  smirking  and  bowing  proprietor,  re- 
marking, suaviter  in  modo :  'True,  sir  you  gave 
me  twenty  thousand  dollars  for  safe-keeping,  and  I 
put  it  in  my  safe ;  but,  like  all  riches,  it  has  taken 
to  itself  wings  and  flown  away.  However,  my  dear 
sir,  here  are  one  hundred  dollars  to  pay  your  expen- 
ses, and  take  you  comfortably  to  your  journey's 
end.' " 

';  There  appears  to  be  something  to  be  said  on 
both  sides,"  I  remarked,  wearying  of  the  discussion 
from  which  all  others,  save  my  adversary  and  my- 
Belf,  had  long  since  fled  ;  for  when  the  time  comes 
for  my  funeral  expenses  to  be  incurred,  no  one  will 
be  able  (whatever  my  readers  may  think)  to  say  of 
me,  as  they  did  of  Lord  Macaulay, 

'  There  was  no  pain  like  silence,  no  constraint 
So  dull  as  unanimity.    He  breathed 
An  atmosphere  of  argument,  nor  shrunk 
From  making,  where  he  could  not  find,  excuse 
For  controversial  fight.' " 

"  But  I  have  the  best  of  it,"  said  my  antagonist. 
"  It  is  a  case  of  New  York  State,  like  Athanasius, 
contra  mundum" 

"At  all  events,  you  will  agree  with  me  that  an 
innkeeper  will  not  be  liable  for  loss  of  his  guest's 
money  when  he  has  intrusted  it  to  the  care  of  some 


96  SAFES    AND    BAGGAGE. 

one  else  on  the  premises  in  whom  he  reposes  confi- 
dence," *  I  replied. 

"  Certainly ;  and  I  remember  a  case  where  a  man 
gave  a  bag  of  money  to  the  step-daughter  of  an 
innkeeper  with  whom  he  was  particularly  intimate, 
having  courted  her  in  marriage,  and  the  bag  having 
disappeared,  the  owner  thereof  got  nothing.2  And 
I  trust  that  you  will  not  deny  that  the  innkeeper  is 
responsible,  notwithstanding  any  notices  up  about 
depositing  in  the  safe,  if  the  guest  has  not  had  time 
to  get  his  valuables  put  in  there  after  his  arrival."  3 

"  Oh,  yes ;  and  he  is  liable  for  their  loss  after  the 
visitor  has  taken  them  out  preparatory  to  his  de- 
parture." 4 

Here  two  bows  were  exchanged,  two  backs 
turned,  and  four  legs  walked  off. 

iHouser  v.  Tulley,  62  Pa.  St.  92. 
2  Sneider  v.  Geiss,  1  Yeates,  24. 

SRoseuplanter  v.  Roessle,  54  N.  Y.  262;  Bendetson  v.  French, 
46  N.  Y. 
*Stanton  v.  Leland,  4  E.  D.  Smith,  88. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

FIRE,    RATS,    AND    BURGLARS. 

After  a  time,  business  called  me  in  the  direction 
in  which  the  "tide  of  empire  rolls,"  and  we  took  a 
long,  but  by  no  means  tedious  or  monotonous  jour- 
ney, along  that  metal  ribbon  which,  stretching  from 
ocean  to  ocean,  unites  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific. 
The  train  was  well  supplied  with  saloon  cars,  bal- 
cony cars,  restaurants,  smoking  cars,  palace  cars, 
and  sleeping  cars.  "VVe  encountered  none  of  the 
adventures  so  graphically  described  by  the  writer 
of  the  veracious  history  of  Phineas  Fogg ;  no  herd 
of  ten  thousand  buffaloes  delayed,  no  daring  band 
of  Sioux  attacked,  our  train ;  we  had  neither  duel 
nor  flying  leap  over  bridges,  crashing  down  into 
abysmal  depths.  We  ate,  we  drank,  we  slept,  we 
talked,  we  gazed ;  we  gazed,  we  talked,  we  slept, 
we  drank,  we  ate ;  and  that  was  all. 

At  last  we  reached  the  wondrous  "  City  of  the 
West,"  and  beheld  the  mighty  waters  of  the  Pacific 
throbbing  upon  the  shores  and  along  the  piers  of 
San  Francisco.  To  the  Palace  Hotel  we  drove,  and 
there  we  took  up  our  quarters,  glad  enough  to  rest 
our  brains,  dizzied  and  dazed  with  our  flight  across 
the  continent. 

Refreshed  by  the  quiet  rest  and  needful  repose 
of  a  long  night's  sleep,  my  wife  insisted  upon  tak- 
ing a  stroll  through  the  magnificent  hotel  in  which 
we  were  now  quartered. 

».  C973 


98  FIRE,   RATS,   AND    BURGLARS. 

"  If  there  was  a  railway  running  along  all  the 
passages  and  corridors  we  might  manage  to  get 
round  the  Palace  Hotel  in  a  morning,"  I  said,  "  but 
steam  has  not  yet  been  introduced  for  that  purpose. 
To  be  sure,  there  is  the  pneumatic  tube,  but  that 
is  not  quite  large  enough  unless  you  are  willing  to 
go  without  a  pannier." 

"  How  large  is  the  house  ?  "   asked  Mrs.  Lawyer. 

"  Why,  it  is  three  hundred  and  fifty  feet  long  by 
two  hundred  and  seventy-five  broad." 

"  Let  us  hurry,  then  ;  if  it  is  so  huge  we  have  no 
time  to  lose,"  was  the  brave  response. 

"Well,  here's  an  elevator,"  I  remarked. 

We  stepped  into  one  of  the  four  passenger 
elevators,  which  are  run  by  hydraulic  power.  The 
motion  was  almost  imperceptible,  and  rapid  as  the 
downward  flight  of  a  swallow.  The  young  gent  in 
charge  told  us  that  it  could  run  from  bottom  to  top 
and  back  again  to  bottom,  through  the  whole  seven 
stories  of  the  house,  in  ten  seconds. 

On  arriving  on  the  ground  floor  we  first  inspected 
the  grand  court  and  the  rooms  on  either  side,  and 
then  turned  into  one  of  the  long  corridors,  from 
which  my  wife  insisted  upon  visiting  the  handsome 
stores,  opening  off  with  their  tempting  wares.  I  left 
her  making  purchases  while  I  entered  the  barber's 
saloon,  and  in  one  of  the  easiest  of  patent  adjustible 
chairs,  by  the  deftest  of  tonsors,  with  the  keenest 
of  razors,  allowed  myself  to  be  shaved ;  for  Mrs.  L. 
loved  not  to  see  a  man  with  his  nose  projecting 
over  a  cascade  of  hair,  and  desired  that  my  face 
might  preserve  its  human  outline,  instead  of  pre- 


FIRE,   RATS,   AND    BURGLARS.  99 

senting — as  she  sarcastically  remarked — no  distinc- 
tion from  the  physiognomy  of  a  bearded  owl  or  a 
Barbary  ape. 

No  fear  of  losing  nose  or  cheek  while  in  that 
place.  But,  after  all,  it  is  not  a  sublime  attitude 
for  a  man  to  sit,  with  lathered  chin,  thrown  back- 
ward, and  have  his  nose  made  a  handle  of.  To  be 
shaved,  however,  is  the  fashion  of  American  respect- 
ability, and  it  is  astonishing  how  gravely  men  look 
at  each  other  when  they  are  all  in  the  fashion. 
For  the  benefit  of  those  unfortunates  who  get 
gashed  betimes  beneath  the  operator's  hand,  I 
would  say,  that  if  a  barber  attempts  to  shave  you 
he  must  possess  the  necessary  education  and  skill, 
and  show  the  diligence  of  an  expert  in  that  line, 
otherwise  he  will  be  liable  for  damages  sustained.1 
Of  course  if  you  suffer  an  inexperienced  volunteer 
to  practice  upon  your  chin  and  you  come  to  grief, 
you  have  no  remedy,  unless  the  amateur  is  guilty  of 
gross  negligence ;  but  if  one  unskilled  in  the  art 
pushes  himself  forward  and  seizes  you  by  the  nasal 
projection,  to  the  exclusion  of  a  professional,  he  is 
expected  to  use  the  skill  usually  possessed  by  a 
master  of  the  art.2  In  Illinois,  it  would  seem  that 
if  one  renders  his  services  free,  gratis,  and  for 
nothing,  he  will  be  only  liable  for  gross  negligence  ;3 
but  the  point  appears  open  to  argument.4  I  pre- 
sume that  no  one  would  be  so  foolish  as  to  suppose 
that  a  professor  of  the  tonsorial  art  is  bound  to 

1  Wharton  on  Negligence,  sees.  50,  730. 

2  Wharton  on  Neg.  sec.  732;  Hood  v.  Grimes,  13  B.  Mon.  188. 
SRitchey  v.  West,  23  111.  385. 

4  Wharton  on  Xegligence,  sees.  437,  641. 


100  FIRE,    RATS,    AND    BURGLARS. 

attend  to  your  hirsute  appendages  willy-nilly ;  but 
when  he  does  take  you  in  hand  he  must  carry  the 
operation  through  without  any  sins  of  omission  or 


commission.1 

When  I  rejoined  my  wife,  she  asked  to  descend 
into  the  basement  regions,  so  down  we  went,  and 
found  bath-rooms  and  laundry-rooms,  wine-rooms, 
pantries,  etc.,  in  well  nigh  endless  succession. 

"How  many  napkins  do  you  use  a  day?"  in- 
quired Mrs.  L.  of  the  individual  whose  duty  it  was 
to  reside  in  a  region  of  perpetual  steam  and  damp. 

"  About  three  thousand,"  was  the  response ;  "  and 
four  hundred  table-cloths,  if  people  are  reasonably 
careful." 

"I  would  like  some  things  washed;  how  soon 
could  you  do  them  ?  "  asked  my  wife. 

"  If  they  are  large  articles,  you  can  have  them 
back  in  your  room  in  fifteen  minutes ;  if  small,  in 
seven  minutes." 

"That's  rather  quick,"  I  remarked. 

"  Well,  sir,  I  have  known  a  man  to  have  his  shirt 
washed  while  taking  a  bath ;  and  a  handkerchief, 
sent  down  the  tube  dirty,  was  returned  clean  during 
the  time  he  was  arranging  his  neck-tie,  or  parting 
his  back  hair." 

On  we  went,  to  the  pantries,  and  saw  the  thou- 
sands and  tens  of  thousands  of  pieces  of  china  and 
crockery,  glass  and  cutlery. 

"A  breakage  occasionally  would  not  matter 
much,  among  so  many  thousands  of  pieces,"  I  re- 
marked. 

1  Wharton  on  Negligence,  sec.  731. 


FIRE,    RATS,    AND    BURGLARS.  101 

"  It  would  matter  more  to  the  man  who  broke 
the  article  than  to  the  hotel  proprietor,  I  calculate," 
responded  the  man  in  charge  of  this  legion  of 
crockery  and  glassware. 

"  Well,  sir,  that  depends  on  how  the  breakage 
occurred.  I  take  it  that  a  guest  at  an  hotel  is,  with 
respect  to  the  things  that  he  uses,  in  the  same 
position  as  if  he  hired  them — in  fact  he  does  hire 
them ;  and  it  is  well  settled  that  every  hirer  of  a 
chattel  is  bound  to  use  the  thing  let  to  him  in  a 
proper  and  reasonable  manner,  to  take  the  same 
care  of  it  that  a  prudent  and  cautious  man  ordina- 
rily takes  of  his  own  property,  and  to  return  it  to 
the  owner  at  the  proper  time,  in  as  good  condition 
as  it  was  in  when  he  got  it,  subject  only  to  deteri- 
oration produced  by  ordinary  wear  and  tear,  and 
reasonable  use,  and  injuries  caused  by  accidents 
which  have  happened  without  any  default  or 
neglect  on  the  part  of  the  hirer.1  The  owner  must 
stand  to  all  the  ordinary  risks  to  which  the  chattel 
is  naturally  liable,  but  not  to  the  risks  occasioned 
by  negligence  or  want  of  ordinary  care  on  the  part 
of  the  hirer.2  In  fact,  as  a  late  writer  has  very 
well  put  it,  the  hirer  of  a  chattel  is  in  no  sense  an 
insurer,  nor  is  he  liable  for  culpa  levissima,  or  that 
apocryphal  phrase  of  infinitesimal  negligence  which 
stands  in  antithesis  to  the  diligentia  diligentissima 
which  the  law  does  not,  as  a  continuous  service, 
exact."3 

1  Jones  on  Bailments,  88. 

2  Addisoii  on  Contracts,  415. 

8  Wharton  on  Negligence,  sec.  713. 


102  FIRE,    HATS,    AND    BURGLARS. 

As  I  paused,  the  man  hastily  remarked  that  he 
had  no  time  to  stop  and  talk,  and  ray  wife,  fearing 
that  the  subterranean  air  was  affecting  my  brain, 
said  that  we  had  better  go  up  stairs ;  so,  like  the 
youth  with  the  strange  device,  "  Excelsior"  was  our 
motto. 

"  Take  that  box  of  matches,"  said  Mrs.  Lawyer. 
"  We  may  want  them  when  off  picnicking." 

"We  had  better  not.  They  are  left  there  for 
the  purpose  of  lighting  cigars,  and  can  only  be 
taken  in  a  limited  manner.  Taking  them  by  the 
boxful  would  be  larceny,  if  the  intent  is  felonious,''1 
I  returned. 

"  What  a  terrible  place  for  a  fire !  "  suggested  my 
Wife. 

"  Yes,"  I  replied.  "  No  fire  would  have  the 
slightest  chance  here.  What  with  the  huge  reser- 
voir supplied  by  artesian  wells,  the  seven  tanks  on 
the  roof,  the  three  large  steam  fire-pumps,  the 
watchmen  going  their  constant  rounds,  and  the 
thermostats  in  every  room  in  the  hotel,  (which, 
when  the  temperature  is  raised  to  120°,  cause  a  bell 
to  be  rung  continuously  in  the  office,  and  show  the 
number  of  the  room  affected  in  the  annunciator)  a 
spark  could  scarce  develop  itself  into  a  blaze  before 
its  discovery." 

"  Well,  but,"  urged  Mrs.  Sawyer,  "  suppose, 
notwithstanding  these  precautions,  a  fire  did  take 
place,  and  our  baggage  was  destroyed,  would  the 
landlord  have  to  pay  for  it?" 

"  I  can  only  say,  rny  dear,  that  on  the  other  side 

iMitchum  v.  The  State,  45  Ala.  29. 


FIRE,   RATS,    AND    BURGLARS.  103 

of  the  continent,  in  the  State  of  Vermont,  where  a 
man  sued  to  recover  the  value  of  a  span  of  horses, 
a  set  of  double  harness,  two  horse-blankets,  and 
two  halters,  it  was  decided  by  the  court  that  an 
hotel-keeper  is  not  liable  for  property  lost  by  lire 
where  the  conflagration  is  occasioned  by  unavoida- 
ble casualty  or  superior  force,  without  any  negli- 
gence on  his  part  or  that  of  his  servants.1  An  Eng- 
lish decision  tends  in  the  same  direction ; 2  and  in 
Michigan  it  wras  held  that  he  was  not  liable  for  the 
horses  and  wagons  of  a  guest,  burned  in  a  barn, 
without  his  negligence.3  But  the  English  decision 
has  been  questioned  both  here  and  there,*  and  in 
New  York  it  was  considered  that  the  liability  of  a 
publican  extended  to  the  loss  of  goods  by  fire, 
(though  the  cause  of  it  was  unknown)  provided 
that  the  guest  is  free  from  all  blame  in  the  matter.5 
In  that  State  they  have  a  law  exempting  landlords 
from  liability  for  the  loss  by  fire  of  a  guest's  goods 
in  a  barn  or  outhouse,  if  it  is  shown  that  the  dam- 
age is  the  work  of  an  incendiary,  and  occurred 
without  negligence  on  their  part;  but  the  burden  of 
proving  this  is,  of  course,  upon  the  innkeeper,6 
and  my  own  humble  opinion  is  that  an  innkeeper 
is  liable  for  all  such  losses  unless  they  are  caused 
by  a  public  enemy,  or  an  act  of  God,  (lightning, 

1  Merrill  v.  Claghorn,  23  Vt.  177;  also  Vance  v.  Throckmor- 
ton,  5  Bush.  (Ky.)41. 
2Dawson  v.  Chamney,  5  Q.  B.  (N.  S.)  164. 
3  Cutler  v.  Bonney,  30  Mich.  259. 

4Mateert>.  Brown,  1  Cal.  225;  Wharton  on  Keg.  p.  111. 
5  Hulett  v.  Swift,  33  N.  Y.  571. 
GFaucett  r.  Nickolls,  G4  N.  Y.  377. 


104  FIRE,   HATS,   AND    BURGLARS. 

or  an  earthquake)  or  the  owner  has   been  negli- 
gent."1 

***** 
•  "  Heigh-ho !"  sighed  my  wife,  as,  exhausted  with 
her  long  tramp  through  the  mammoth  house,  she 
sank  into  a  luxurious  arm-chair  on  our  return  to 
our  own  apartment,  preparatory  to  an  excursion 
through  the  city.  "Look  at  that  horrid  little 
thing !  "  she  exclaimed  the  next  instant,  and  start- 
ing up  with  enough  vehemence  to  frighten  a  lion, 
she  scared  away  a  little  mouse  that  had  been  nib- 
bling at  her  reticule.  "  The  little  wretch!  see  how 
it  has  spoilt  my  nice  new  satchel!  It  must  have 
been  the  cakes  inside.  Can  I  make  the  landlord 
give  me  a  new  one?"  she  avariciously  added. 

"  Humph !  I  wish  that  some  one  had  asked  me 
that  question  who  could  afford  to  pay  me  for  a 
carefully  considered  opinion,"  I  replied. 

"  Why  can't  you  tell  me  ?  " 

"  Because  I  scarcely  know  what  to  say.  The 
point  seems  open  to  argument.  I  don't  remember 
any  case  where  the  depredations  of  mice  have  occu- 
pied the  attention  of  a  court  of  law,  although 
there  have  been  several  decisions  on  the  subject  of 
rats." 

"Well,  and  what  were  they?"  exclaimed  my 
wife,  impatiently.  "That  a  man  can  keep  the 
nasty  things  in  his  house,  and  let  them  damage  the 
property  of  his  guests,  and  not  pay  for  them  ?  " 

"  In  one  case  where  rats  gnawed  a  hole  in  the 
bottom  of  a  boat,  and  the  water,  coming  in  at  the 

aMateer  v.  Brown,  1  Cal.  221. 


FIRE,    RATS,    AND    BURGLARS.  105 

leak,  damaged  goods  on  board,  the  owner  of  the 
vessel  was  held  liable  for  the  performance  of  those 
rodents;1  and  in  another  case,  carriers  were  held 
responsible  for  their  depredations  on  board  a  ship, 
although  there  were  cats  and  mangooses  on  board, 
and  the  owners  had  availed  themselves  of  the  val- 
uable services  of  the  venerable  sire  of  the  pretty 
rat-catcher's  daughter  of  Paddington  Green."  2 

"  But  you  stupid  man,  we  are  not  on  board  ship," 
said  my  amiable  and  accomplished  spouse. 

"And,"  I  replied,  "that  is  exactly  where  the 
difficulty  arises ;  for  where  a  man  had  a  water-tank 
on  the  ivof  of  his  house,  and  the  rats  gnawed 
through  a  leaden  pipe  so  that  water  trickled  down 
and  injured  the  goods  of  another  fellow  on  the 
ground  floor,  the  court  held  that  the  owner  of  the 
establishment,  who  occupied  the  upper  flat,  was  not 
responsible — and  Chief  Baron  Kelly  remarked  that 
it  was  absurd  to  supposa  that  a  duty  lay  on  the 
landlord  to  exclude  the  possibility  of  the  entrance 
of  rats  from  without."  3 

"That  seems  a  very  different  view  from  that 
taken  by  the  judges  in  the  other  cases,"  remarked 
Mrs.  L." 

"  Yes ;  but  the  Chief  Baron  said  that  the  case  of 
a  ship  was  wholly  different — that  it  might  be  possi- 
ble to  insure  freedom  from  rats  in  a  ship,  but  that 
it  was  impossible  to  say  that  this  co\ild  be  done 
with  respect  to  warehouses  generally,4  and  another 

iDale  v.  Hall,  1  Wils.  281. 
2  Kay  y.  Wheeler,  L.  R.  2  0.  P.  302. 
sCarstairs  v.  Taylor,  Law  R.  G  Ex.  217. 
4  Carstairs  v.  Taylor,  supra. 


106  FIRE,   BATS,   ASTD    BTJRGLABS. 

judge  remarked  that  a  landlord  could  not  be  con- 
sidered negligent  if  he  omitted  taking  means  to  get 
rid  of  these  pests  till  there  -was  reason  to  suppose 
they  were  in  the  building." l 

"Never  mind  what  others  considered  and  thought 
and  said — what  do  you  think?" 

"  I  think  that  perhaps  the  rule  would  apply  that 
if  a  man  permits  an  animal  to  remain  in  his  posses- 
sion he  becomes  liable  for  the  mischief  it  com- 
mits." 2 

"  Do  you  know  what  I  think  ?  "  queried  my  wife. 

"No,  my  dear." 

"  That  we  had  better  go  to  lunch." 

****** 

As  we  were  quietly  sleeping  the  sleep  of  the  wea- 
ried just  that  night,  I  was  aroused  by  a  noise  at  our 
window.  In  a  moment  or  two  it  was  opened,  and 
then  a  man  stealthily  entered  the  room.  I  had  not 
time  to  ask  him  what  he  wanted,  for  at  the  first 
sound  of  my  voice  he  was  off  as  quickly  as  if  he 
had  heard  the  click  of  a  pistol.  I  made  the  win- 
dow secure,  and  again  entered  dream-land.  In  the 
morning,  as  we  donned  the  attire  which  Adam's 
transgression  has  rendered  uecessaiy,  my  wife  and 
myself  conversed  on  the  subject  of  the  liability  of 
an  hotel-keeper  for  losses  occurring  to  his  guests 
from  burglary. 

"  In  Vermont,  my  dear,"  I  said,  "  it  has  been  held 
that  if  the  proprietor  could  show  that  the  burglari- 
ous entry  was  under  circumstances  that  absolved 

1  Ibid,  per  Bramwell,  J. 
2McKome  v.  Word,  5  Car.  &  P.  1. 


FIKE,    EATS,   AND    BURGLAES.  107 

him  from  all  blame,  he  would  not  be  liable.1  But 
that  doctrine  is  not  now  followed."  2 

"  And  what  do  the  judges  now  say?  " 

"It  was  decided  in  this  sunset  State  that  although 
the  point  may  be  somewhat  unsettled,  yet  still  the 
true  idea  is  to  hold  that  innkeepers,  like  common 
carriers,  are  insurers  of  the  property  committed 
to  their  charge,  and  are  bound  to  make  restitution 
for  any  injury  or  loss  not  caused  by  the  act  of  the 
Almighty,  nor  by  a  common  enemy,  nor  by  the 
neglect  or  default  of  the  owner."3 

A  fresh  topic  of  conversation  here  suggesting 
itself  to  the  active  brain  of  Mrs.  L.,  she  launched 
out  upon  it  con  amore. 

I  found  afterwards  that  I  had  not  been  the  only 
object  of  the  burglar's  attentions,  for  as  I  was  saun- 
tering along  one  of  the  corridors  of  the  hotel  I  was 
accosted  thus : 

"I  say,  you  walking  digest  of  the  law  of  inns 
and  innkeepers,  what's  the  consequence  if  a  guest 
is  a  little  careless  and  loses  his  valuables?" 

This  question  was  familiarly  put  to  me  (that  is, 
put  in  a  way  that  evinced  no  intention  on  the  part 
of  the  speaker  of  paying  for  the  information  sought) 
by  an  old  friend,  with  whom  I  occasionally  con- 
versed on  legal  topics,  and  from  whom  carelessness 
and  negligence  were  as  inseparable  as  Apollo  and 

1  McDaniels  v.  Robinson,  26  Vt.  311;  Morse  ».  Shee,  1  Vent. 
190,  238. 

2  Mateer  r.  Brown,  1  Cal.  221 ;  Norcross  v.  Norcross,  53  Me. 
1G3;  Pinkerton  v.  Woodward,  33  Cal  557. 

8  Mateer  v.  Brown,  supra.    See,  also,  Mason  v.  Thompson,  9 
Pick.  284. 


108  FIRE,   BATS,   AND    BURGLARS. 

his  golden  bow,  or  Orpheus  and  his   tuneful  lyre. 

"The  same  old  Story,  to  whom  I  have  often 
alluded  in  my  professional  talks  with  you,  says  * 
that  negligence  may  be  ordinary,  or  less  than  ordin- 
ary, or  more  than  ordinary;  and  that  ordinary 
negligence  may  be  defined  to  be  want  of  ordinary 
diligence,  and  gross  negligence  to  be  want  of  slight 
diligence.  Although  some  English  judges  have 
said  that  they  can  see  no  difference  between  negli- 
gence and  gross  negligence ;  that  it  is  the  same 
thing  with  the  addition  of  a  vituperative  epithet.2 
Of  what  kind  of  negligence  have  you  been  guilty, 
and  what  has  happened  ?  " 

"  I  did  not  say  that  I  had  been  doing  anything. 
But  suppose  that  a  fellow  had  some  money  in  his 
portmanteau  and  left  it  in  the  hall  of  the  hotel  with 
the  other  baggage,  and  didn't  say  anything  about 
it  to  the  landlord,  and  it  disappeared." 

"  Well,  sir,  in  such  a  case  I  should  say  that  a 
jury  would  be  warranted  in  finding  that  the  indi- 
vidual referred  to  had  been  guilty  of  gross  negli- 
gence, and  that  the  hotel-keeper  was  exonerated 
through  his  imprudence  in  thus  exposing  his  goods 
to  peril."  3 

"  I  had  some  such  idea  floating  through  my  own 
cranium." 

"  'Tis  a  pity  that  your  brain  is  in  such  a  liquid 
state.  I  remember  a  case  of  a  man  of  the  name  of 
Armistead,  a  commercial  traveler,  who,  while  at  an 

1  Story  on  Bailments,  sec.  17. 

2Rolfe,  B.  in  Wilson  v.  Brett,  11  M.  &  W.  110;  Austin  v. 
Manchester  &c.  Railway,  10  C.  B.  474, 
3  Fowler  v.  Dorlon,  24  Barb.  384. 


FIRE,   RATS,   AND    BURGLARS.  109 

hotel,  placed  his  box  in  the  commercial  room,  as 
was  the  wont  of  those  who  visited  the  house.  The 
box  had  money  in  it,  and  was  left  there  for  three 
nights.  Twice  or  thrice,  in  the  presence  of  several 
on-lookers,  Armistead  opened  the  trunk  and  count- 
ed his  change.  The  lock  was  so  bad  that  any  one 
could  unfasten  it  without  a  key  by  simply  pushing 
back  the  bolt.  The  money  leaked  away  mysteri- 
ously, and  Armistead  sued  the  landlord  to  recover 
it,  but  the  judge  who  tried  the  case  told  the  jury 
that  gross  negligence  on  the  part  of  the  guest  would 
relieve  the  host  from  his  common-law  liability;  and 
when  the  matter  came  up  before  the  court  it  was 
held  that  the  jury  had  done  right  in  finding  the 
traveler  had  been  guilty  of  such  gross  negligence 
as  to  excuse  his  landlord  from  liability  for  the 
money.  Lord  Campbell  remarked  that  the  judge 
would  have  been  astray  had  he  said  that  in  all 
cases  a  box  should  be  taken  to  the  guest's  bedroom, 
and  he  doubted  whether,  in  order  to  absolve  the 
innkeeper,  there  must  be  crassa  negligentia  on  the 
part  of  the  guest."  1 

"That's  the  law,  is  it?" 

"  A  still  more  recent  case  settled  the  question  as 
to  the  amount  of  negligence  that  would  bind  the 
owner  of  the  goods.  In  deciding  it,  Earle,  J.,  said 
that  he  thought  that  the  rule  of  law  resulting  from 
all  the  authorities  was,  that  in  a  case  like  the  one 
he  was  considering  the  goods  always  remained 
under  the  charge  of  the  innkeeper  and  the  protection 
of  the  inn,  so  as  to  make  the  landlord  liable  as  for 

1  Armistead  v.  White,  29  Law  J.  Q.  B.  524. 
10. 


110  FIRE,    EATS,   AND    BURGLARS. 

» 

breach  of  duty,  unless  the  negligence  of  the  guest 
occasions  the  loss,  in  such  a  way  as  that  it  would 
not  have  happened  if  the  guest  had  used  the  ordi- 
nary care  that  a  prudent  man  might  reasonably 
have  been  expected  to  take  under  the  circumstan- 
ces ; 1  and  the  same  rule  seems  to  hold  good  on  this 
side  of  the  Atlantic."2 

"  If  a  friend  bags  your  baggage,"  inquired  the 
searcher  after  cheap  knowledge,  "  at  an  hotel,  and 
marches  off  with  it,  could  you  compel  the  proprie- 
tor of  the  establishment  to  make  good  your  loss?" 

"It  was  decided  not,  in  Illinois,  where  one  had 
allowed  his  chum  to  exercise  acts  of  ownership  over 
his  trunk ; 3  and  long  ago  it  was  held,  in  the  old 
land,  that  if  a  landlord  tells  a  guest,  on  his  arrival, 
that  he  has  no  room,  the  house  being  full,  and  his 
words  are  veritable  truth,  and  yet  the  guest  insists 
upon  being  admitted,  saying  that  he  will  shift  for 
himself,  or  if  he  go  and  share  the  apartment  of 
another,  without  the  consent  of  the  proprietor  or 
his  servants,  the  host  is  not  responsible  for  his 
traps,  unless  the  sufferer  can  show  that  the  goods 
were  actually  stolen  or  lost  through  the  negligence 
of  the  innkeeper  or  his  servants.4  But  an  inn- 
keeper can't  shirk  his  liability  because  his  house  is 
full  of  parcels,  if  the  owner  is  stopping  at  the 
house."  5 

1  Cashill  v.  Wright,  6  El.  &  B.  898. 

2  Chamberlain  v.  Masterson,  26  Ala.  371 ;  Hartley  v.  Upshaw, 
27  Tex.  547;  Profiles  v.  Hall,  11  La.  An.  324. 

3  Kelsey  v.  Berry,  42  111.  469;  Cayle's  Case,  8  Coke,  32. 
4 1  Andess.  29. 

6  Bennett  v.  Mellor,  5  T.  R.  273. 


FIRE,   RATS,   AND    BURGLARS.  Ill 

"To  tell  you,  then,  what  really  did  happen  to 
me  :  I  got  in  here  late  last  night,  and  after  entering 
my  name  at  the  office,  pulled  out  my  purse  and 
paid  the  cabby;  I  then  went  to  my  room,  and  being 
very  tired,  tumbled  out  of  my  clothes  as  rapidly  as 
nature  and  art  would  permit  me,  put  them  on  a 
chair  near  the  bed,  and  was  soon  among  the  flowery 
meads  of  dream-land.  This  morning,  lo  and  behold ! 
the  purse  which  I  had  left  in  my  pocket  was  gone, 
some  villain  having,  while  I  slept,  entered  the  room 
by  the  door,  which  I  had  omitted  to  fasten.  Now, 
then,  what  are  my  rights  and  remedies  in  the 
premises?"  asked  my  friend. 

"In  the  days  when  the  Virgin  Queen,  Elizabeth, 
ruled  the  benighted  land  of  our  ancestors,  and 
trifled  with  the  affections  of  subject,  prince,  king, 
czar,  and  Caesar,  the  whole  Court  of  Queen's  Bench 
decided  that  an  innkeeper  was  bound  by  law  to 
keep  the  goods  and  chattels  of  his  guests,  without 
any  stealing  or  purloining,  and  that  it  was  no  ex- 
cuse for  him  to  say  that  he  delivered  to  the  guest 
the  key  of  his  bed-room,  and  that  he  (the  guest)  had 
left  the  door  open,  (that  is,  I  presume,  unlocked)  ;  1 
for  that  he,  the  landlord,  is  responsible  for  their 
safety,  even  in  the  bed-room,  and  that  even  though 
the  poor  publican  never  knew  that  his  visitor  had 
any  property  with  him,  and  was  entirely  ignorant  of 
the  depredation.  Unless,  indeed,  the  thief  was  the 
guest's  servant  or  friend,  or  the  proprietor  had  re- 
quired the  guest  to  place  his  goods  in  a  particular 
chamber,  under  lock  and  key,  saying  that  then  he 

1  Erie,  J..  in  Cashill  v.  Wright,  6  El.  &  D.  895. 


112  FIKE,    RATS,    AND    BURGLABS. 

would  warrant  their  safety,  otherwise  not,  and  the 
man  had  foolishly  neglected  the  advice." l 

"Ah,  well!  then  I  am  all  right." 

"  Kindly  refrain  from  forming  a  definite  opinion 
until  you  are  in  full  possession  of  the  whole  law  on 
the  subject.  I  know  that  it  has  been  held  again 
and  again,  in  England,  that  a  guest  is  not  bound  to 
either  fasten  or  lock  his  door.2  In  a  very  late  case 
Lord  Chancellor  Cairns  remarked  that  he  would  be 
sorry  to  say  any  single  word  implying  that  there  is 
any  rule  of  law  as  to  this ; 3  and  our  own  authori- 
ties seem  to  be  in  unison  with  the  English  decis- 
ions.4 But  perhaps  you  may  have  heard  the  re- 
mark that  circumstances  alter  cases." 

"  I  must  confess  the  maxim  has  a  ring  not  alto- 
gether novel  to  my  ears." 

"I  may  say  that  it  is  particularly  true  in  legal 
matters ;  and  sometimes  it  is  incumbent  on  a  guest 
to  fasten  his  door.5  For  example,  a  commercial 
traveler  obtained  a  private  room  wherein  to  exhibit 
his  goods  to  his  customers.  Clements,  the  landlord, 
told  him  to  lock  the  door.  This  the  man  neglected 
to  do,  although  while  showing  his  samples  a  stranger 
had  twice  popped  his  phiz  into  the  room.  The  court 
considered  that  the  traveler  by  his  own  act  had  ab* 
solved  Clements  from  his  liability,  and  that  he  must 
bear  his  loss  as  philosophically  as  possible."  6 

1  Cayle's  Case,  8  Coke,  32. 

2  Mitchell  v.  Woods,  1G  L.  T.  Hep.  N.  S.  G76;  Filipourke  v. 
Merryweather,  2  Fost.  &  F.  285. 

3  Spice  v.  Bacon,  16  Alb.  L.  J.  386. 

4  Classen  v.  Leopold,  2  Sweeney,  (N.  Y.)  705. 

5  Baddenberg  v.  Benner,  1  Hilt.  (X.  Y.)84. 

6  Burgess  v.  Clements,  4  Moore  &  S.  306. 


FIRE,    RATS,    AND    BURGLARS.  113 

"  Did  the  occupants  of  the  bench  state  the  why 
and  the  wherefore  ?  " 

"  Yes ;  and  it  was  partly  on  the  ground  that  the 
hotel-keeper  was  not  bound  to  extend  the  same  pro- 
tection to  goods  placed  in  a  room  for  the  purposes 
of  trade  as  to  those  in  an  ordinary  chamber.  (You 
know  the  liability  is  only  as  to  baggage ;  it  extends 
not  to  merchandise.)!  And  further,  that  circumstan- 
ces of  suspicion  had  arisen  which  should  have  put  the 
guest  on  his  guard;  that  after  the  vision  of  the 
strange  head  it  became  his  duty,  in  whatever  room 
he  might  be,  to  use  at  least  ordinary  diligence,  and 
particularly  so  as  he  was  occupying  the  apartment 
for  a  special  purpose.  For  though,  in  general,  a 
traveler  who  resorts  to  an  inn  may  rest  upon  the 
protection  which  the  law  casts  around  him,  yet,  if 
circumstances  of  suspicion  arise,  he  must  exercise 
at  least  ordinary  care."  2 

"  But,"  said  my  companion,  "  I  had  no  head  to 
warn  me — not  even  Banquo-like  did  any  '  horrible 
shadow,  unreal  mockery'  appear,  to  place  me  on 
my  guard." 

"A  case  occurred  at  Bristol,  in  England,  which 
may,  perchance,  put  the  matter  to  you  in  a  clear 
light.  A  man  of  foreign  extraction,  Oppenheim 
by  name,  went  to  the  White  Lion  Hotel.  While 
in  a  public  room  he  took  from  his  pocket  a  canvas 
bag,  containing  twenty-two  gold  sovereigns,  some 
silver,  and  a  £5  note,  and  extracted  therefrom  q 
tanner  —  " 

iPettigrew  v.  Barnum,  11  Md.  434;  Giles  v.  Fauntleroy,  13 
Md.  126. 
2  Burgess  v.  Clements,  supra. 


114  FIKE,   RATS.    ANT>   BTTRGLABS. 

"A  what?" 

"  A  six-penny  bit — to  pay  for  some  stamps. 
Shortly  afterwards  he  retired  for  the  night  to  n 
room  in  an  u;>per  story;  the  door  had  both  lock 
and  bolt ;  the  window  looked  on  to  a  balcony.  The 
chambermaid  told  him  that  the  window  was  open, 
but  said  nothing  about  the  door.  He  closed  the 
latter,  but  did  not  lock  it  or  bolt  it ;  left  the  window 
open,  and  placed  his  clothes,  with  the  money  in  a 
pocket,  on  a  chair  at  his  bedside.  During  the  night 
some  one  entered  by  the  door  and  removed  the  bag 
without  first  removing  the  money  from  it.  Of 
course  Oppenheim  sued  the  hotel  company,  and 
had  the  pleasure  of  hearing  the  judge  tell  the  jury 
that  they  should  consider  whether  the  loss  would 
or  would  not  have  happened  if  O.  had  used  the 
ordinary  care  which  a  prudent  man  might  reason- 
ably be  expected  to  have  used  under  the  circum- 
stances." 

"  And  the  jury  said  what?" 

"  Why,  they  said  the  hotel  company  were  not 
liable ;  and  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  at  West- 
minister, said  that  the  judge  had  put  the  law  cor- 
rectly, and  that  the  jury  had  clone  their  duty." 

"But  then  the  guest  had  been  guilty  of  other 
acts  of  negligence  besides  leaving  his  door  un- 
locked ;  he  showed  his  purse —  " 

"  Et  tu  Brute  !  "  I  remarked. 

"  I  forgot,"  was  the  confession. 

"  The  whole  facts  of  the  case  must  be  looked  at ; 
and  the  judges  thought  there  was  evidence  of  neg- 
ligence on  Oppenheim's  part  which  contributed  to 


FIRE,    BATS,    AND    BUllGLAKS.  115 

the  loss.  One  of  my  Lords  said  that  he  agreed  in 
the  opinion  that  there  is  no  obligation  on  a  guest  at 
an  inn  to  lock  his  bedroom  door ;  but  the  fact  of 
the  guest  having  the  means  of  securing  himself  and 
choosing  not  to  use  them  is  one  which,  with  the 
other  circumstances  of  the  case,  should  be  left  to 
the  jury.  The  weight  of  it  must,  of  course,  depend 
upon  the  state  of  society  at  the  time  and  place ; 
what  would  be  prudent  at  a  small  hotel  in  a  small 
town  might  be  "the  extreme  of  imprudence  at  a 
large  hotel  in  a  city  like  Bristol,  where  probably 
three  hundred  bedrooms  were  occupied  by  people 
of  all  sorts.1  And  one  of  the  other  judges  re- 
marked that  Lord  Coke,  in  the  case  to  which  I  first 
referred,2  only  meant  that  an  hotel-keeper  could 
not  get  rid  of  his  liability  by  merely  handing  his 
guest  a  key,  and  that  he  by  no  means  laid  it  down 
that  a  guest  might  not  be  guilty  of  negligence  in 
abstaining  from  using  it."  3 

"  Well,  what  am  I  to  do  ?" 

"  Do !  Why  let  the  past  bury  the  past,  and  in 
future  remember  three  golden  rules  whenever  you 
are  at  an  hotel.  First,  under  any  circumstances 
lock  your  bedroom  door  when  you  retire  for  the 
night.  Secondly,  do  not  display  your  cash  in  pub- 
lic places;  and,  Thirdly,  consider  whether  there  are 
not  special  circumstances  calling  for  special  caution 
on  your  part,  and  if  there  are,  act  accordingly. 
But  you  have  not  told  me  yet  how  much  you  lost." 

1  Per  Montague  Smith,  J. ;  Oppenheim  v.  White  Lion  Hotel 
Co.  L.  R.  6  C.  P.  515. 

2  Cayle's  Case. 

8  Oppenheim  v.  White  Lion  Hotel  Co.  ante. 


116  FIRE,    BATS,   AND   BURGLARS. 

"  Only  $2 ;  but  it  is  the  principle  involved  that  I 
look  at." 

"  You  rascal !  if  I  had  known  that  it  was  such  a 
paltry  sum,  I  would  not  have  taken  the  trouble  to 
tell  you  all  that  I  have." 


CHAPTER  VII. 
HORSES   AND    STABLES. 

Time  passed,  and  back  to  the  East  we  had  come. 
On  a  certain  day  my  wife  and  myself,  together  with 
a  couple  of  friends,  yclept  Mr.  and  Mrs.  De  Gex, 
engaged  a  carriage  and  pair  to  take  us  some  twenty 
or  thirty  miles  into  the  country  to  see  some  wonder- 
ful sights — what  they  were  is  quite  immaterial  at 
this  late  date.  A  pleasant  drive  and  charming  day 
we  had.  The  night  we  were  to  spend  at  a  little 
village  inn. 

The  mistress  of  the  small  establishment  received 
us  right  warmly,  so  that  a  perfect  glow  of  pleasure 
pervaded  one's  inner  man. 

"Ah,"  said  Mrs.  De  Gex,  who  was  inclined 
towards  sentimentalism,  "  how  true  are  the  words 
of  the  poet ! 

'Whoe'er  has  traveled  life's  dull  round, 
"Where'er  his  stages  may  have  been, 

May  sigh  to  think  that  he  has  found 
His  warmest  welcome  at  an  inn.'  " 

The  innkeeper  told  our  driver  to  leave  the  car- 
riage outside  on  the  road.  One  of  the  party  asked 
if  that  would  be  safe. 

"  If  it  is  not,"  I  replied,  "  Boniface  is  responsible, 
for  I  remember  that,  in  England,  a  man  drove  up 
to  an  inn  on  a  fair  day  and  asked  the  landlord 
if  he  had  room  for  the  horse,  and  a  servant  of  the 

C1173 


118  HOUSES  AND   STABLES. 

establishment  put  it  into  the  stable,  while  the  trav- 
eler took  his  coat  and  whip  into  the  house,  where 
he  got  some  refreshment.  The  hostler  placed  the 
gig  in  the  open  street,  (outside  the  inn-yard)  where 
he  was  accustomed  to  leave  the  carriages  of  guests. 
The  gig  having  been  stolen,  the  publican  was  held 
liable."  i 

"That  seems  rather  hard,  when,  perhaps,  the 
yard  was  full,"  some  one  remarked. 

"  The  landlord  was  not  bound  to  receive  the  gig 
if  he  had  not  sufficient  accommodation  for  it.  The 
guest  did  not  know  whether  there  was  room  or  not ; 
and  as  the  hostler  took  the  horse,  he  had  a  right  to 
assume  that  there  was.  If  the  proprietor  had 
wished  to  protect  himself  he  should  have  told  the 
traveler  that  he  had  no  room  in  the  yard,  and  that 
he  would  have  to  put  the  gig  in  the  street,  where, 
however,  he  would  not  be  liable  for  it.  He  did  not 
do  so,  and  had  to  bear  the  penalty.2  And  it  has 
been  held  in  this  country  that  an  innkeeper  would 
be  responsible  in  the  same  way  where  a  guest's 
servant  had  placed  his  master's  property  in  an 
open,  uninclosed  space,  by  the  direction  of  the 
hostler,  and  upon  being  assured  that  it  would  be 
quite  safe  there."  3 

"  Mr.  Justice  Story  once  said  that  in  the  country 
towns  of  America  it  is  very  common  to  leave 
chaises  and  carriages  at  inns  under  open  sheds  all 
night,  and  also  to  leave  stable  doors  open  and 
unlocked ;  and  that  if,  under  those  circumstances, 

1  Jones  v.  Tyler,  1  Ad.  &  E.  522. 

2  Taunton,  J. ,  in  Jones  y.  Tyler. 

3  Piper  v  Manny,  21  Wend.  283. 


HORSES   AND   STABLE3.  119 

a  horse  or  a  chaise  should  be  stolen,  it  would  de- 
serve consideration  how  far  the  innkeeper  would 
be  liable,"  l  said  Mr.  De  Gex,  my  companion,  who 
had  looked  iuside  a  law-book  or  two. 

"  I  fancy  it  has  been  considered,"  I  replied,  '•  and 
the  innkeeper  has  met  with  little  consideration, 
and  is  held  bound  to  protect  the  property  of  those 
whom  he  receives  as  his  guests.  In  one  instance, 
the  driver  put  his  loaded  sleigh  in  the  wagon-house 
of  the  inn,  where  such  things  were  usually  placed ; 
and  the  doors  of  the  shed  having  been  broken  open 
and  property  stolen,  the  landlord  was  held  bound 
to  make  good  the  loss,  without  loss  of  time.2  But 
Dr.  Theophilus  Parsons,  who  knows  something  of 
these  matters,  says  that  if  a  horse  or  carriage  is  put 
in  an  open  shed  with  the  owner's  consent  or  by  his 
direction,  the  innkeeper  will  not  be  liable  for  their 
loss,  and  that  where  this  is  usually  done  and  the 
owner  of  the  horse  knows  the  custom  and  gives  no 
particular  instructions,  it  may  be  presumed  that 
he  consented  and  took  the  risk  upon  himself."  3 

"  Suppose  we  inspect  the  stable  and  see  what 
accommodation  there  is  for  our  equine  friends." 
We  entered.  "Rather  risky  place  to"  put  t\vo 
city  horses  in,"  De  Gex  continued.  "  Look  at  the 
flooring.  A  nag  of  any  spirit,  not  accustomed  to 
the  place,  might  kick  through  it  and  break  its  leg." 

"Well,"'  I  said,  "the  innkeeper  is  bound  to  pro- 
vide safe  stabling  for  the  horses  of  his  guest,  and 
if  any  evil  betide  the  animals  from  being  improp. 

1  Story  on  Bailments,  sec.  478. 

2  Chute  »•.  Wiggins,  11  Johnson,  175. 

3  Parsons  on  Contracts,  vol.  2,  p.  1G9. 


120  HORSES  AND   STAPLES. 

erly  tied,  or  the  stalls  being  in  bad  repair,  full 
compensation  may  be  recovered.1  He  is  responsi- 
ble from  the  moment  he  receives  the  quadrupeds 
until  they  leave ;  even  after  the  owner  has  paid  his 
bill  and  his  man  is  harnessing  them  to  go ; 2  and, 
as  a  rule,  the  statutory  laws  limiting  the  liability  of 
hotel-keepers  do  not  apply  to  horses  or  carriages." 

"  Your  view  is  the  one  a  lawyer  (a  man  without 
a  heart)  might  take  of  it,  but  a  merciful  man  is 
merciful  to  his  beast  and  does  not  like  to  run  the 
chance  of  its  being  killed." 

"  The  tavern-keeper's  liability  extends  even  to 
the  death  of  the  animals  in  his  care,"3  I  remarked. 

"  Still,  one  should  himself  exercise  reasonable 
care  and  caution,"  returned  De  Gex.  "  I  remember 
a  gentleman,  who  kept  his  horse  at  an  inn,  rode 
out  one  evening  and  on  returning  himself  took  it 
into  the  stable  and  tied  it  up  in  the  stall  in  which 
it  had  usually  been  kept.  The  next  morning  the 
horse  was  found  dead  in  the  same  stall,  its  head 
wedged  fast  in  the  trough,  which  was  made  of  a 
hollow  beech  log  having  a  bulge  in  the  middle, 
thus  rendering  that  part  wider  than  the  top.  The 
poor  beast  had  evidently  killed  itself  in  trying  to 
extricate  its  head.  The  owner  brought  an  action 
against  the  publican,  but  had  to  bear  the  loss,  not 
only  of  his  horse  but  also  of  the  suit."  4 

"  Yet  I  know  that  where  a  horse  had  been  choked 

1  Dickenson  v.  Rodgers,  4  Humph.  (Tenn. )  179. 

2  Seymour  v.  Cook,  53  Barb.  451. 

SMetcalf  v.  Hess,  14  111.  129  ;  Hill  v.  Owen,  5  Blackf.  (Ind.) 
323. 
^Thickstern  t>.  Howard,  8  Blackf.  535. 


HOUSES  AND  STABLES.  121 

to  death  by  its  halter,  and  it  Was  proved  that  it 
was  tied  under  the  superintendence  and  direction 
of  the  owner  himself,  and  in  reply  the  owner 
pi'oved  that  the  stall  in  which  it  had  been  was  in 
very  bad  condition,  it  was  held  that  the  innkeep- 
er could  not  give  further  evidence.1  And  when 
another  innkeeper  agreed  with  the  owner  of  a  horse 
to  entertain  the  man  in  charge  one  day  in  every 
week,  or  oftener  if  he  should  chance  to  stop  at  the 
inn  with  the  horse,  furnish  the  latter  with  proven- 
der and  allow  it  to  be  kept  in  a  particular  stall : 
no  one  but  the  man  in  charge  took  care  of  the 
horse;  yet  on  its  being  injured  in  its  stall,  the  inn- 
keeper was  held  answerable."  2 

"And  look,  besides,  there  are  no  proper  parti- 
tions between  the  stalls,"  said  my  friend,  "  and 
some  other  nag  might  kick  one  of  ours ;  and  you 
know  that  it  was  decided  in  the  old  country  that 
under  such  circumstances  the  publican  would  not 
be  liable  for  the  injuries  so  inflicted,  unless  it  could 
be  proved  that  he  did  not  take  due  and  proper  care 
in  excluding  vicious  and  kicking  horses."  3 

"  Hah ! "  I  exclaimed.  "  But  that  case  has  since 
been  doubted,  and  it  can  scarcely  be  accepted  as 
good  law.4  Well,  what  shall  we  do  ?  " 

"  Let's  tell  them  to  turn  the  nags  into  the  field," 
said  De  Gex. 

"If  you  do,  and  they  are  lost,  stolen  or  injured, 

1  Jordan  v.  Boone,'  5  Rich.  528. 
2Washburn  v.  Jones,  14  Barb.  193. 
«  Dawson  v.  Chamney,  52  B.  33. 

4  Wbarton  on  Innkeepers,  p.  Ill;  Matier  v.  Brown,  1  Cal. 
221. 

11. 


122  HOUSES  AND   STABLES. 

we  cannot  look  to  our  host  for  recompense,  unless 
Master  Boniface  himself  be  guilty  of  negligence,  as 
by  putting  them  in  a  field  where  pits  or  ditches 
abound  or  fences  and  gates  are  broken  or  open. 
If,  however,  he  should  put  them  into  the  pasture 
of  his  own  accord,  he  would  be  answerable;!  for 
then  the  field  would  be  considered  as  part  of  the 
inn  premises.  Although  Story  thinks  that  the  lat- 
ter rule  should  be  qualified,  as  it  is  such  a  common 
custom  in  America  in  the  summer  time  to  put 
horses  in  a  pasture,  he  says  the  implied  consent  of 
the  guest  may  fairly  be  presumed,  if  he  knows  the 
practice.'"' 2 

"  Well,  let  us  send  them  over  to  the  other  house, 
where  the  stabling  appears  better,  while  we  our- 
selves lodge  here,"  again  suggested  Mr.  De  G. 

"  That  might  do,"  I  made  answer;  "  for  an  inn- 
keeper is  bound  to  receive  a  horse,  even  though 
the  owner  chooses  to  go  elsewhere.3  And  it  is  clear- 
ly settled  that  in  the  eyes  of  the  law  a  man  becomes 
a  guest  at  a  place  of  public  entertainment  by  hav- 
ing his  horse  there,  though  he  himself  neither 
lodges  nor  takes  refreshments  there."  * 

"  But  I  thought  that  an  innkeeper  was  not  bound 
to  take  the  goods  of  a  man  who  merely  wishes  to 
use  the  house  as  a  place  of  deposit ; 5  nor  liable  for 
things  so  left  there,  except  as  an  ordinary  bailee."  6 

1  Cayle's  Case,  8  Rep.  32;  Hawley  v.  Smith,  25  Wend.  642. 

2  Story  on  Bailments,  sec.  478. 

8  Saunders  v.  Plummer,  Orl.  Bridg.  227. 
4  Mason  v.  Thompson,  9  Pickering,  280. 
s  Bennet  v.  Mellor,  5  T.  E.  273. 

6  Wintermute  v.  Clarke,  5  Sandf.  242;  Smith  v.  Dearlove,  6 
0.  B.  132. 


HOUSES  AND   STABLES.  123 

"  Oh,  that  rule  only  applies  to  dead  things  out 
of  which  the  man  can  make  no  profit ;  but  with 
animals  the  innkeeper  is  chargeable,  because  he 
makes  something  out  of  keeping  them.  And,  as  I 
said,  it  has  been  frequently  held  that  he  is  liable 
for  the  loss  of  a  horse,  although  its  owner  puts  up 
at  a  different  place.  But  there  is  some  doubt." l 

"  Will  he  also  be  liable  for  the  carriage  ?  "  asked 
my  companion. 

"  Yes,  and  for  the  harness  as  welt ;  for  the  com- 
pensation paid  for  the  horses  will  extend  the  host's 
responsibility  to  such  articles.  And  the  owner  will 
be  able  to  sue  for  damages  if  anything  happens  to 
our  nags,  although  they  have  been  hired  by  us.2  If 
a  servant  brings  his  master's  horse  to  an  inn,  and 
while  there  it  is  stolen,  of  course  the  master  can  sue 
the  innkeeper ; 3  and  for  all  such  legal  purposes  the 
hirer  of  goods  will  be  deemed  the  owner's  servant." 

"  Suppose  a  horse-thief  stops  at  an  inn  and  there 
loses  his  prize,  can  the  owner  then  sue  the  land- 
lord?" 

"  No ;  he  must,  under  those  trying  circumstances, 
look  simply  to  the  person  who  first  deprived  him 
of  his  faithful  nag,"4  I  replied. 

"The  other  innkeeper  may  charge  pretty  well 
for  the  horses,  if  we  stay  here  ourselves,"  suggested 
De  Gex. 

1  Peel  v.  McGraw,  25  Wendell,  653 ;  York  v.  Grindstone,  1 
Salk.  388;  Sturt  v.  Dromgold,  3  Bulst.  289.    But  see  Grinnell 
v.  Cook,  3  Hills,  N.  Y.  686;  Ingallsbee  v.  Wood,  33  N.  Y.  577; 
36  Barb.  N.  Y.  425;  Nowers  v.  Fethers,  61  N.  Y.  34;  Healey  v. 
Gray,  68  Me.  489. 

2  Mason  v.  Thompson,  supra. 

8  Bacon' s  Abr.  Inns  and  Innkeepers,  C. 
4  Bacon,  supra. 


124  HORSES  AND   STABLES. 

"  In  the  good  old  days  of  yore  he  could  not  have 
done  that,  for  innkeepers  were  bound  to  ask  only  a 
reasonable  price,  to  be  calculated  according  to  the 
rates  of  the  adjoining  market,  without  getting  any- 
thing for  litter ;  1  and  if  they  made  a  gross  over- 
charge, the  guests  had  only  to  tender  a  reasonable 
sum,  and  have  them  indicted  and  fined  for  extortion.2 
But  I  fear  me  those  halcyon  days  have  passed. 
Do  you  know  that  if  a  man  is  beaten  at  an  inn  the 
proprietor  is  not  answerable,  although  if  the  man's 
horse  should  be  so  treated,  even  if  it  were  not 
known  who  did  it,  the  publican  will  be  liable?"8 

"  That  is  queer  law.     Why  is  it  ?  " 

"  Because  in  ages  long  since  gone  by  an  innkeep- 
er's liability  was  confined  to  one's  bona  et  catalla, 
and  injury  to  a  man  is  not  damage  to  his  bona  et 
catalla" 

"  Well,  I  am  sure  I  don't  see  what  would  dam- 
age his  '  bones  and  cartilage,'  if  a  good  beating  did 
not.  Let  us  join  the  ladies." 

"  I  think  we  had  better,  after  that  atrocious  at- 
tempt at  a  pun,"  I  replied.  "  Well  said  the  Auto- 
crat of  the  Breakfast  Table,  '  a  pun  is  prima  facie 
an  insult  to  the  person  you  are  talking  with.  It 
implies  utter  indifference  to,  or  sublime  contempt 
for,  his  remarks,  no  matter  how  serious.' " 

We  found  our  better  halves  had  gone  out  for  a 
walk.  Knowing  that  their  feminine  curiosity  would 
soon  bring  them  to  a  standstill  we  started  in  pur- 
suit, and  speedily  came  up  with  them  as  they  stood 

1 21  Jac.  I,  chap.  21,  sec.  2. 

2 1  Hawk.  225. 

s  Cayle'a  Case,  8  Rep.  32;  Stammin  v.  Davis,  1  Salk.  404. 


HOUSES  AND   STABLES.  125 

gazing  at  some  rose  bushes  in  a  pretty  flower  gar- 
den. 

"  Did  you  ever  see  such  bea-u-ti-f ul  roses  ? " 
screamed  Mrs.  De  Gex,  whose  voice,  when  pitched 
in  a  high  key,  was  as  melodious  as  a  peacock's. 

"And  so  many!  "  added  Mrs.  Lawyer. 

"  I  am  somewhat  a  believer  in  the  doctrine  of 
metempsychosis,"  said  Mr.  De  Gex. 

"  What  has  such  a  horrid  thing  to  do  with 
roses?"  asked  his  wife. 

"  Merely  that,  if  it  be  true,  I  may  have  seen  finer 
and  more  numerous  flowers  long,  long  ago." 

"  Explain,"  I  exclaimed. 

"  Well,  when  in  another  form  I  may,  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  Christian  era,  have  been  present  at 
the  regatta  near  lovely  Baias  and  seen  the  whole 
surface  of  the  Lucrine  Sea  strewn  with  these  flow- 
ers, according  to  custom;  or  I  may  have  been 
present  at  some  of  old  Nero's  banquetings,  when 
he  caused  showers  of  rose-leaves  to  be  rained  down 
upon  the  assembled  guests ;  or,  in  fact,  I  may  have 
been  at  Heliogabalus'  dinner  party,  when  such 
heaps  of  these  same  flowers  were  flung  over  the 
revelers  that  several  were  smothered  to  death. 
That  frail  beauty,  Cleopatra,  was  wont  to  spend 
immense  sums  on  roses,  and  at  one  entertainment, 
that  she  gave  in  honor  of  her  friend  Anthony,  she 
had  the  whole  floor  covered  more  than  a  yard 
deep." 

"  How  delightful !  "  chorused  the  ladies. 

"  The  Sybarites  used  to  sleep  upon  beds  stuffed 
with  rose-leaves.  That  old  tyrant  Dionysius,  at 


126  HOUSES  AND   STABLES. 

his  revels,  constantly  reclined  on  a  couch  made  of 
the  blossoms.  Verres,  with  whom  Cicero  had  the 
tussle,  was  accustomed  to  travel  through  his  prov- 
ince reclining  gracefully  on  a  mattrass  full  of  them; 
and  not  content  with  this,  he  had  a  wreath  of  roses 
round  his  head  and  another  around  his  neck,  with 
leaves  intertwined.  And  Antiochus,  when  he 
wanted  to  be  uncommonly  luxurious,  would  sleep 
in  a  tent  of  gold  and  silver  upon  a  bed  of  these 
flowers." 

"  Did  they  indulge  in  attar  ?  " 

"  I  cannot  say,  but  at  his  parties,  Nero — that 
champion  fiddler  of  Rome — would  have  his  foun- 
tains flinging  up  rose-water;  and  while  the  jets 
were  pouring  out  the  fragrant  liquid,  white  rose- 
leaves  were  on  the  ground,  in  the  cushions  on 
which  the  guests  lay,  hanging  in  garlands  on  their 
noble  brows,  and  in  wreaths  around  their  necks. 
The  couleur  de  rose  pervaded  the  dinner  itself,  and 
a  rose  pudding  challenged  the  appetites  of  the 
guests,  while,  to  assist  digestion,  they  indulged  in 
rose  wine.  Heliogabalus  was  so  fond  of  this  wine 
that  he  used  to  bathe  in  it." 

"  What  a  waste !  "  said  my  wife. 

"  "Whose  ?    That  girl's  ?  "  I  asked. 

"You  horrid  man !  "  returned  my  wife.  "  But  I 
know  you  pretend  to  dislike  roses." 

"  Yes,"  I  said,  "  if  metempsychosis  is  correct,  I 
must  have  been  killed  two  or  three  times  during 
the  Wars  of  the  Roses.  I  believe,  with  the  ancient 
Aztecs,  that  sin  and  sorrow  came  into  the  world 
through  the  first  woman  plucking  a  forbidden 
rose." 


HORSES  AND  STABLES.  127 

"He  is,  perhaps,  not  quite  so  bad  as  the  lady 
who  had  such  a  strong  antipathy  to  this  queen  of 
flowers  that  she  actually  fainted  when  her  lover 
approached  her  wearing  an  artificial  one  in  his  but- 
ton-hole ;  nor  as  good  Queen  Bess's  lady-in-waiting, 
who  disliked  the  flower  so  much  that  her  check 
actually  blistered  when  a  white  one  was  placed  up- 
on it  as  she  slept.  He  is  most  like  Tostig  of  old," 
continued  my  wife. 

"  He  cannot  smell  a  rose  but  pricks  his  nose 
Against  the  thorn  and  rails  against  the  rose." 

Our  position  changed  and  so  did  the  subject. 
***** 

The  next  day  when  we  went  over  for  our  horses 
we  found  a  most  interesting  discussion  going  on 
between  the  landlord  and  a  man  of  a  class  some- 
what too  common  in  these  hard  times,  an  impecu- 
nious lawyer,  concerning  the  right  of  the  former 
to  detain  the  horse  of  the  latter  for  the  hotel  bill 
of  the  owner. 

"  You  can't  do  it,"  said  the  poverty-stricken  dis- 
ciple of  Coke.  "  No  innkeeper  can  detain  the  other 
goods  and  chattels  of  a  guest  for  payment  of  the 
expenses  of  a  horse,  nor  a  horse  for  the  expenses  of 
the  guest.  You  can  only  keep  my  horse  for  the 
price  of  its  own  meat,  and  that  has  been  paid  for.1 
If  a  man  brought  several  horses  to  your  old  inn, 
each  one  could  be  detained  only  for  its  own  keep, 
and  not  for  that  of  the  others ;  and  if  you  let  the 

1Rosse  v.  Bramstead,  2  Rol.  Rep.  438;  Bac.  Abr.  vol.  4,  p. 
411;  Parsons  on  Contracts,  vol.  3,  p.  250.  But  see  Mulliner  v. 
Florence,  L.  R.  3  Q.  B.  D.  454. 


128  HOUSES  AND   STABLES. 

owner  take  away  all  but  one,  you  could  not  keep 
that  one  until  your  whole  bill  was  paid,  but  you 
would  have  to  give  it  up  on  tender  of  the  amount 
due  for  its  keep.1  Hullo ! "  he  added,  as  he  saw  me, 
"here's  a  gentleman  who  knows  all  about  such  things. 
Is  not  what  I  state  correct  ?  "  he  coolly  asked. 

"  Certainly,"  I  said,  turning,  to  the  landlord. 
"Mr.  Blackstone's  law  is  better  than  his  pay; 
though,  perhaps,  Mr.  Story  may  be  said  to  doubt 
his  last  statement."  2 

"But,"  said  Boniface,  a  short,  fat  man,  made 
without  any  apparent  neck  at  all — only  head  and 
shoulders  like  a  codfish — "but  the  rascal  did  not 
pay  me  for  the  last  time  he  put  up  his  old  beast 
here,  and  I'll  keep  it  now  till  I  am  paid  or  till  it 
dies,  which  latter  event  will  probably  happen  first  to 
such  a  bag  of  bones." 

"  You  can't  do  that,  old  boy,"  said  Mr.  B.,  de- 
lightedly. 

"  He  is  right  again,"  I  replied.  "  If  you  let  a  guest 
take  away  his  horse,  unless,  indeed,  he  merely  takes 
it  out  for  exercise,  day  by  day,  animo  revertendip 
it  amounts  to  giving  him  credit  and  a  relinquish- 
ment  of  your  right  of  lien,  so  that  you  can't  after- 
wards retake  it.  And  even  if  the  man  was  to  come 
back  and  run  up  another  account  for  the  keep  of 
his  horse,  although  you  might  detain  it  for  the  lat- 
ter debt,  you  could  not  for  the  former."  4 

iMoss  v.  Townsend,  1  Bulstr.,207.  But  see  Story  on  Bail- 
ments, sec.  476. 

2  Story  on  Bailments,  sec.  476. 

3  Allan  v.  Smith,  12  C.  B.,  N.  S.  638. 

4  Jones  v.  Thurloe,  8  Mod.  172;  Jones  v.  Pearle,  1  Strange. 
556;  Parsons  on  Contracts,  vol.  3,  p.  250. 


HOUSES  AND   STABLES.  129 

"But  have  I  no  lien  upon  the  horse  of  a  guest? 
Besides,  I  did  not  let  him  take  it  away.  He  went 
off  with  it  at  daybreak,  before  any  one  was  up,  the 
villain,"  said  mine  host,  waxing  more  and  more 
wrathy  as  the  thought  of  past  grievances  recurred 
to  him. 

"  He,  he,  he  !  "  laughed  B.  "  You  might  have 
retaken  it  if  you  had  been  spry  enough,  and  then 
you  might  have  kept  it ;  but  now  it's  too  late,  too 
late,  too  late,  as  the  song  says."  l 

"  Exactly  so,"  I  added.  "  Of  course,  my  dear 
sir,  there  is  little  doubt  but  what  you  have  a  right 
to  detain  a  horse,  brought  to  you  by  a  traveler,  for 
its  keep.2  And  if  you  kept  that  old  nag  you  would 
have  a  perfect  right  to  continue  to  charge  for  the 
food  supplied  from  day  to  day,  while  it  remained 
in  your  possession,  and  that  although  Mr.  B.  dis- 
tinctly told  you  that  he  would  not  be  responsible 
for  anything  supplied  to  his  horse ;  because  other- 
wise your  security  would  soon  be  reduced  t  >  the 
value  of  an  old  hide  and  bones.3  But  then  cui 
bono?" 

"  What's  that  ?  "  asked  the  astonished  innkeeper. 

"  I  mean,  what  would  you  gain  by  the  additional 
outlay  of  good  fodder  ?  "  I  explained. 

"  Why,  I  would  make  the  old  thing  work !  "  re- 
plied the  man. 

"  No,  indeed !  "  said  Blackstone.     "  You  would 

1  Ross  v.  Bramstead,  2  Eol.  Rep.  438. 

2  York  v.  Grindstone,  2  Ld.  Raym.  86G.    But  see  Fox  v.  Mc- 
Gregor, 11  Barb.  (N.  Y. )  41 ;  Saint  v .  Smith,  1  Caldw.(Tenn. )  51. 

8  Gilbert  v.  Berkeley,  Skin.  G48.    And  see  Scarfe  v.  Morgan, 
4  M.  &  W.  270;  and  Somes  v.  B.  Emp.  Ell.  Bl.  &  Ell.  353. 


130  HOESES  AND  STABLES. 

have  no  right  to  ride  on  my  horse,  or  use  him  for 
your  own  benefit  in  any  way."  l 

"  You  would  have  no  more  right  to  use  it  for 
your  own  pleasure  and  benefit  than  a  man  who  dis- 
trains a  cow  for  rent  has  to  enjoy  the  fruits  of  her 
ruminations.  You  could  only  ride  the  hoi-se  for 
the  purpose  of  preserving  its  health  by  proper  exer- 
cise," 2  I  remarked. 

"  I  am  dashed  if  I'd  do  that,"  cried  the  publican, 
waxing  fierce. 

"  You  would  have  to  do  it," 3  shrieked  Black- 
stone,  triumphantly. 

"  Well,"  then  roared  the  master  of  the  establish- 
ment, "  I'd  sell  the  blamed  thing  quick  enough." 

"  If  you  did  you  would  get  yourself  into  hot 
water,  and  have  to  pay  me  the  full  value  of  the 
beast;  for  an  innkeeper  can't  sell  a  horse  he  detains 
for  its  board  without  the  consent  of  the  owner.4 
Ho  !  ho  !  ho  !  "  laughed  the  little  rascal. 

The  poor  landlord  looked  at  me  with  such  a  de- 
spairing glance — a  look  of  a  dying  duck  in  a  thun- 
der-storm— that  I  could  scarce  restrain  my  risible 
faculties  as  I  remarked : 

"  I  am  afraid  your  adversary  is  correct,  and  not 
even  if  a  horse  were  to  eat  its  head  off  could  you 
sell  it,  unless  you  chanced  to  live  in  London  or 

iWestbrooke  r.  Griffith,  Moor.  876;  Jones  v.  Thurloe,  8 
Mod.  172;  Mulliner  v.  Florence,  L.  R.  3  Q.  B.  D.  489. 

2  Westbrooke  v.  Griffith,  supra. 

8  Idem. 

4  Jones  ?;.  Pearle,  Str.  556;  Thames  I.  W.  Co.  v.  Pat.  Der- 
rick Co.  1  Johns.  &  W.  97;  27  L.  J.  C.  714;  Mulliner  v.  Flor- 
ence, L.  R.  3  Q.  B.  D.  484. 


HORSES  AXD   STABLES.  131 

Exeter.  Your  only  remedy  would  be  to  sue  for 
the  price  of  the  food,  get  judgment,  and  then  sell.1 
You  cannot  sell  a  right  of  lien,  or  transfer  the 
property,  without  losing  your  right  and  rendering 
yourself  liable  to  an  action.  One  must  proceed  by 
suit."  2 

The  landlord  turned  to  the  rascally  attorney,  and 
shaking  his  fist  at  him,  exclaimed  :  "  Get  out,  and 
if  ever  you  darken  my  door  again — look  out ! " 

"  Keep  cool,  sir,  keep  cool,  the  day  is  warm. 
Don't  shake  your  fist  in  my  face,  sir.  It  is  not  the 
first  time  I've  done  the  old  chap,"  added  my  un- 
worthy confrere,  tui'ning  to  us  with  a  look  of 
importance ;  "  and  it  will  not  be  the  last,  unless 
I've  read  law  for  naught." 

"  How  did  you  take  him  in  before  ?  "  I  queried. 

"  Well,  some  years  ago  I  was  hard  up — not  the 
first,  perhaps  not  the  last  time  I  have  been  in  that 
state — and  I  knew  not  how  to  get  my  team  fed  for 
a  week  or  two.  So,  believing  that  money  had  a 
considerable  influence  with  our  friend  here,  I  got  a 
chap  to  run  off  with  my  ponies,  bring  them  here, 
and  throw  out  some  hints  that  it  would  be  all  right 
in  a  pecuniary  point  of  view  if  they  could  be  kept 
in  the  stable  for  a  few  days  until  the  affair  blew 
over.  All  went  merry  as  a  marriage  bell.  I  adver- 
tised for  horses  lost,  stolen,  or  strayed,  and  after 
some  three  weeks  happened  here  and  quite  acci- 
dentally, you  know,  found  my  span.  Of  course 
mine  host  wanted  pretty  good  pay,  but  I  talked  to 

1  Wharton  on  Innk.  122;  Cross  on  Lien,  345  n. 

2  Fox  v.  McGregor,  4  Barb.  41 ;  Hickinan  v.  Thomas,  16  Ala. 
666;  Miller  v.  Marston,  85  Me.  153. 


132  HOKSES  AND   STABLES. 

him  like  a  father ;  told  him  that  I  knew  that  if  a 
traveler  brings  to  an  inn  the  horse  of  a  third  per- 
son, the  innkeeper  has  a  perfect  right  to  detain  it 
for  its  keep ;  that  of  course  he  was  not  bound  to 
inquire  whose  horse  it  was ;  x  that  that  highly  esti- 
mable and  worthy  occupant  of  the  bench  in  days 
that  are  no  more,  I  mean  Judge  Coleridge,  said 
that  with  reference  to  an  innkeeper's  lien  there  was 
no  difference  between  the  goods  of  a  guest  and 
those  of  a  third  person  brought  by  a  guest.2  This 
pleased  the  old  rascal.  Then  I  pleaded  poverty,  but 
Shylock  was  unmoved ;  then  I  assumed  an  appear- 
ance of  anger  at  his  keeping  my  horses  and  went 
away." 

"But  how  did  that  help  you?"  I  asked  impa- 
tiently, growing  weary  of  a  story  that  was  long 
enough  for  the  ears  of  an  antediluvian  patriarch. 

"Oh,  I  had  not  left  the  worthy's  house  five  min- 
utes before  I  happened,  quite  accidentally,  you 
know,  to  meet  the  man  who  had  taken  the  horses. 
Back  we  came.  Boniface  admitted  that  he  was 
the  one  who  had  brought  my  ponies  to  the  inn. 
Then  said  I :  '  Sir,  this  man  has  confessed  that  he 
told  you  that  he  did  not  own  the  horses,  that  he 
had  stolen  them ;  you,  therefore,  became  a  party  to 
his  crime  and  have  no  right  to  keep  my  horses  any 
longer  for  their  charges.  See — here  is  the  law ; '  and 
I  showed  him  Oliphant  on  Horses,  page  129  ; 3  and 

1  York  v.  Grenaugh,  2  Ld.  Baym.  866;  Robinson  v.  Walker, 
Pop.  127. 

2  Turrill  v.  Crawley,  13  Ad.  &  E.  (N.  S.)  197;  Manning  v. 
Hollenbeck.  27  Wis.  202. 

»  See,  also,  Johnson  u.  Hill,  3  Stark.  172. 


HOESES  AND   STABLES.  133 

the  fellow   at   once   caved  in.     Ta-ta,   Mr.   Law- 
yer." 

And  so  off  went  the  man  to  practice  his  knaveries 
and  trickeries  on  some  other  unfortunate  members 
of  the  genus  homo.  The  only  consolation  of  a  vir- 
tuous man  is  that 

"Doubtless  the  pleasure  is  as  great 
Of  being  cheated  as  to  cheat." 

"  Well,"  said  my  friend,  who  had  all  this  time 
been  standing  by,  a  silent  but  not  an  unbenefited 
listener,  "  Well,  it  strikes  me  that  the  law  concern- 
ing innkeepers  and  horses  needs  what  Lord  Dun- 
dreary thought  the  country  did,  that  is  to  say, 
namely,  to  wit,  improving ! " 

"  True  for  you,''  I  replied.  "  For  instance,  until 
recently  it  was  doubtful  whether  an  innkeeper  who 
detains  a  horse  as  a  pledge  for  its  keep,  can  detain 
also  the  saddle  and  bridle,  or  even  the  halter  which 
fastens  it  to  the  stall.1  And  where  a  man  stopped 
with  his  horse  at  an  inn  under  suspicious  circum- 
stances, and  the  police  ordered  the  innkeeper  to 
retain  the  animal,  it  was  held  that  the  poor  landlord 
had  no  lien.2  And  if  a  neighbor  leaves  his  nag 
with  an  innkeeper  to  be  fed  and  kept,  allowing  him 
to  use  it  at  his  pleasure,  and  a  creditor  of  the  owner 
seize  it  for  a  debt,  the  poor  publican  has  no  lien  for 
the  animal's  keep ; 3  nor  would  he  have,  where  he 

1  Wharton,  p.  120;  Stirt  v.  Drungold,  3  Bulst.  289.     But  see 
Mulliner  v.  Florence,  L.  R.  3  Q.  B.  D.  484. 

2  Burns  v.  Pigot,  9  C.  &  P.  208. 
BGrinnell  v.  Cook,  3  Hill,  (N.  Y.)  486. 


134  HORSES  AND  STABLES. 

boards  the  horses  of  a  stage  line,  under  a  special 
agreement." 1 

"What  about  a  livery-stable  keeper?"  asked 
De  Gex. 

"Down  in  Georgia,  it  was  held  that  he  had  a 
right  of  lien  on  horses  and  buggies  left  in  his  keep- 
ing ; 2  but  everywhere  else,  it  is  considered  that  he 
has  no  such  lien,  for  the  contract  with  him  is  that 
the  owner  is  to  have  the  horse  whenever  required ; 3 
and  the  claim  of  a  lien  would  be  inconsistent  with 
the  neoessary  enjoyment  of  the  property."  4 

"  Suppose  the  livery  man  pays  out  money  to  a 
vet.  for  advice  ?  " 

"  That  would  make  no  difference.5  But  if  a  man 
who  is  both  an  innkeeper  and  a  livery-stable  keeper 
receives  a  horse,  and  does  not  say  he  takes  it  in  the 
latter  capacity,  he  has  all  the  responsibilities  of  an 
innkeeper,  as  well  as  all  his  privileges.6  On  the 
other  hand,  if  an  innkeeper  receives  horses  and 
carriages  on  livery,  the  fact  that  the  owner  on  a 
subsequent  day  takes  refreshment  at  the  inn  will 
not  give  the  innkeeper  an  innkeeper's  rights.7  I 
was  almost  forgetting  to  say  that  even  a  livery- 
stable  keeper  may  have  a  lien  by  express  agree- 

i  Dixon  v.  Dalby,  9  U.  C.  Q.  B.  79. 

2Grammell  v.  Schley,  41  Ga.  112. 

3  Judson  v.  Etheridge,  1  C.  &  M.  743;  Anderson  v.  Bell,  2  C. 
&  M.  304;  Parsons  on  Contracts,  vol.  3,  p.  250. 

4Kinlock  v.  Craig,  3  L.  R.  119;  Tayloru.  Robinson,  8  Taunt. 
648;  Jackson  v.  Cummins,  5  M.  &  W.  342. 

s Orchards.  Rackstraw,  9  C.  B.  698;  Hickman  v.  Thomas, 
16  Ala.  666;Thickstein  v.  Howard,  8  Blackf.  535. 

6  Mason  v.  Thompson,  9  Pick.  280 

f  Smith  v.  Dearlove,  6  C.  B.  132. 


HORSES  AND   STABLES.  135 

ment ;  *  and  if  he  exercises  any  labor  or  trouble  in 
the  improvement  of  the  animals,  he  will  have  a  lien 
for  his  charges. 2 

"  Well,  I  rather  fancy  that  the  ladies  will  think 
we  have  not  almost,  but  altogether,  forgotten  them, 
and  intend  to  pass  another  night  here.  Let  us  be 
off." 

1  Wallace  v.  Woodgate,  1  Ryan  &  M.  193. 
2, Jacobs  v.  Latour,  2  M.  &  P.  20;  5  Bing.  130;  Jackson  f. 
Cummins,  5  M.  &  W.  342;  Harris  v.  Woodruff,  124  Mass.  205. 


CHAPTER   VIII. 
WHAT    IS    A    LIEN? 

As  we  turned  to  leave  the  premises  to  hasten 
back  to  our  respective  wives,  leaving  our  Jehu  to 
bring  the  carriage  and  horses,  we  were  accosted  by 
a  most  dilapidated  specimen  of  the  genus  "  seedy," 
who  appeared  to  be  a  kind  of  stable-boy  or  hostler 
not  overstocked  with  brains.  Judging  from  a  cursory 
glance,  his  pants  had  parted  in  irreconcilable  anger 
from  his  boots,  and  had  cautiously  shrunk  well  up 
to  the  knees — as  if  apprehensive  of  a  kick  from 
the  big  toe  which  was  well  enough  to  be  outside 
the  remains  of  the  boots ;  here  and  there  patches  of 
bare  skin  peeped  out  through  his  tattered  set-upons, 
as  if  pleased  to  see  daylight  and  have  a  little  fresh 
air.  Yet  of  such  varied  hues  were  they,  that  the 
most  profound  ethnologist  would  be  perplexed  to 
decide  whether  the  man  should  be  classed  among 
the  Caucasian,  Mongolian,  Malay,  Indian,  or  Negro 
race,  or  whether  he  was  a  hybrid  compound  of 
all  five.  His  coat,  in  colors,  would  have  rivaled 
Joseph's,  and  made  the  teeth  of  his  naughty  breth- 
ren water  with  tenfold  jealousy.  His  hat  might 
have  for  generations  been  used  in  winter  to  exclude 
the  rains  and  snows  from  a  broken  window,  in  sum- 
mer for  the  breeding  place  of  barn-door  fowls.  The 
countenance  of  this  tatterdemalion  seemed  as  empty 
as  his  pockets,  and  his  brain  as  disordered  as  his 

[136] 


WHAT   IS  A  LIEN?  137 

long  yellow  hair;  his  breath  as  alcoholic  as  the 
store-room  of  a  distillery ;  his  tout  ensemble  any- 
thing but  suggestive  of  the  "  is  he  not  a  man  and  a 
brother"  sentiment. 

In  piteous  tones  this  wreck  of  what,  perchance, 
was  once  a  mother's  darling,  a  father's  pride,  asked : 

"  Be  you  a  liyur,  sur?" 

"  Yes.     What  do  you  want  ?  "  I  returned. 

"  Well,  sur,  I'm  a  poor  man,  with  not  a  cint  to 
bliss  myself  Avid ;  and  I  come  here  one  day  and  got 
a  bite  of  vittals,  and  bedad,  sur,  the  ould  landlord 
seized  me  for  rint,  and  said,  says  he,  that  he  had 
a  lane  upon  me  for  those  same  scraps  of  cold  food ; 
and  says  he,  I  must  stay  here  and  work  for  him 
until  I  can  pay  up.  Now,  kin  lie  do  that  same, 
yur  honor  ?  " 

"  No,  most  certainly  not.  He  has  no  right  to 
keep  you  or  any  other  man  for  such  a  reason.1  So 
you  had  better  be  off." 

"Long  life  to  your  honoi-,  and  may  the  holy 
saints — but  kin  he,"  and  again  the  voice  sank  into 
a  wail,  "  kin  he  kape  me  clothes  ?  " 

"  Nothing  that  you  have  on," 2  I  replied,  as  I 
turned  away,  thinking  that  I  could  hear  the  scratch 
of  the  recording  angel's  pen  as  he  scored  another 
to  the  number  of  my  good  deeds. 

"  Was  it  not  considei'ed  at  one  time  that  an  inn- 
keeper had  the  right  to  detain  the  persons  of  his 
guests  for  the  payment  of  their  bills  ?  "  queried  De 
Gex. 

1  Sunbolf  v.  Alford,  3  M.  &  W.  254;  Parsons  on  Contracts, 
vol.  3,  p.  250. 

2  Ibid. 


138  WHAT   IS  A  LIEU? 

"Yes,  old  Bacon  so  lays  it  down,1  and  so  did  one 
Judge  Eyres,2  long  since  gone  to  his  account ;  and 
in  some  of  the  old  text-books  the  same  view  is 
taken.  But  the  idea  was  exploded  forty  years  ago 
by  the  combined  effort  of  Lord  Abinger,  C.  B.,  and 
his  puisnes.  Barons  Parke,  Bolland,  and  Gurney." 

"  On  what  occasion  ?  " 

"A  man  of  the  name  of  Sunbolf  sued  an  inn- 
keeper for  assaulting  and  beating  him,  shaking  and 
pulling  him  about,  stripping  and  pulling  off  his 
coat,  carrying  it  away  and  converting  it  to  his  own 
use." 

"  That  was  rather  rough  of  him." 

"  It  was,  but  the  innkeeper,  Alford,  replied  that 
he  kept  a  common  inn  for  the  reception,  lodging 
and  entertainment  of  travelers  and  others;  and 
that  just  before  the  time  when  he  did  all  those 
things  complained  of,  Sunbolf  and  divers  other 
persons  in  company  with  him  came  into  the  inn  as 
guests ;  and  that  he  then  found  and  provided  them, 
at  their  request,  with  divers  quantities  of  tea  and 
other  victuals ;  and  that  Sunbolf  and  the  other  per- 
sons thereupon,  and  just  before  the  committing  of 
the  grievances,  became  and  were  indebted  to  him 
in  a  certain  small  sum  of  money,  to  wit,  eleven 
shillings  and  three  pence,  for  the  said  tea  and  vict- 
uals ;  and  thereupon  he,  the  innkeeper,  just  before 
he  did  the  things  of  which  he  was  accused,  required 
and  demanded  of  Sunbolf  and  the  others,  payment 
by  them,  or  some  or  one  of  them,  of  the  said  sum, 

1  Bacon's  Abr.  Inns.  D. 

2  Newton  v.  Trigg,  1  Shower,  269. 


WHAT   IS  A  LIEK?  139 

or  some  security  or  pledge  for  the  payment  there- 
of; but  Sunbolf  and  the  others  wholly  refused 
then,  or  at  any  other  time,  to  pay  to  him  the  said 
sum,  or  leave  with  or  give  to  him  any  security  or 
pledge  for  the  payment  of  the  same ;  and  before 
he  did  the  acts  spoken  of,  Sunbolf  persisted  in 
leaving,  and  would  have  departed  and  left  the  said 
inn,  against  the  innkeeper's  will  find  consent,  with- 
out paying  the  said  sum  of  eleven  shillings  and 
three  pence,  so  due  as  aforesaid,  had  not  he,  A., 
kept  and  detained  him,  Sunbolf,  or  some  other  of 
the  said  persons,  or  their  goods  and  chattels,  or 
some  of  them,  until  they  paid  it;  and  because 
Sunbolf  and  the  others  would  go  and  depart  from 
the  said  inn  without  paying,  and  refused  to  pay 
that  sum  to  him,  and  because  the  sum  remained 
wholly  due  to  him,  and  because  Sunbolf  and  the 
others  would  not,  and  refused  to  leave  with  or  give 
any  pledge  or  security  whatever  to  him  for  the 
payment  of  that  sum,  and  he  (that  is,  Alford)  could 
not  procure  or  obtain  from  them,  or  any  or  either 
of  them,  any  other  pledge  or  security  than  the  said 
coat  mentioned,  he,  (the  said  Alford)  at  the  time 
mentioned,  did  gently  lay  his  hands  on  Sunbolf  to 
prevent  him  going  and  departing  from  the  said  inn 
without  his  or  the  other  persons  paying  the  said 
eleven  shillings  and  three  pence,  or  giving  him 
some  pledge  or  security  for  the  payment  of  it ;  and 
he  did  then,  for  the  purpose  of  acquiring  such  secu- 
rity or  pledge,  to  a  gentle  and  necessary  degree, 
lay  his  hands  upon  Sunbolf,  and  strip  and  pull  the 
said  coat  from  and  off  of  him,  the  same  being  a 


14:0  WHAT   IS  A  LIEN? 

reasonable  pledge  or  security  in  that  behalf,  and 
then  placed  the  same  in  the  said  inn  wherein  he 
had  thence  thitherto  kept  and  detained  the  same  as 
such  pledge  and  security,  for  the  said  debt  of  eleven 
shillings  and  three  pence,  being  wholly  due  and 
unpaid  to  him  ;  and,  therefore,  he  (Alford)  suffered 
and  permitted  Suiibolf  and  the  others  to  go  and 
depart  from  the  said  inn  ;  and  on  the  occasion 
aforesaid  he  necessarily  and  unavoidably,  to  a  small 
degree,  shook  and  pulled  about  Sunbolf ;  and  these 
were  the  acts  complained  of." 

"  Well  said  the  wise  man  of  old,  '  Audi  alteram 
wartemj  "  said  my  friend.  "  Alford's  story  gives 
quite  a  different  aspect  to  the  whole  affair." 

"  It  gives  you,  at  any  rate,  an  idea  of  the  long- 
winded  pleadings  in  vogue  in  the  year  of  grace 
1838." 

"  Was  A.'s  explanation  satisfactory  to  the  court  ?  " 

"Oh,  dear,  no!  Parke,  B.,  asked,  during  the  ar- 
gument, if  an  innkeeper  had  a  right  to  turn  his  guest 
out  without  a  coat ;  or  if  he  had  a  right  to  take  off 
all  his  clothes,  and  send  him  away  naked ;  and  af- 
terwards, in  giving  judgment,  he  clearly  and  dis- 
tinctly answered  his  own  queries,  and  said  that  an 
innkeeper  had  no  power  to  strip  a  guest  of  his 
clothes ;  for  if  ho  had,  then,  if  the  innkeeper  took 
the  coat  off  his  back,  and  that  proved  an  insufficient 
pledge,  he  might  go  on  and  strip  him  naked,  and 
that  would  apply  either  to  a  male  or  female " 

"  That  would  be  shocking !" 

"  The  learned  baron  merely  considered  it  utterly 
absurd,  and  that  the  idea  could  not  be  entertained 


WHAT   IS  A  tlEN?  141 

for  a  moment.  Another  of  the  judges  said  that  he 
had  always  understood  the  law  to  be  that  the 
clothes  on  the  person  of  a  man,  and  in  his  posses- 
sion at  the  time,  are  not  to  be  considered  as  goods 
to  which  the  right  of  lien  can  properly  apply  ;  that 
the  consequence  of  holding  otherwise  might  be  to 
subject  parties  to  disgrace  and  duress  in  order  to 
compel  them  to  pay  a  trifling  debt  which,  after  all, 
was  not  due,  and  which  the  innkeeper  had  no  pre- 
tence for  demanding." 

"  But,  my  dear  fellow,  we  were  speaking  of  the 
right  of  a  landlord  to  keep  the  body  of  his  guest." 

"  To  be  sure  we  were.  The  Chief  Baron  said 
that  if  an  innkeeper  had  a  right  to  detain  a  guest  for 
the  non-payment  of  his  bill,  he  had  a  right  to  de- 
tain him  until  the  bill  was  paid,  which  might  be  for 
years  or  might  be  for  aye ;  so  that  by  the  common 
law,  a  man  who  owed  a  small  debt,  for  which  lie 
could  not  be  imprisoned  by  legal  process,  might 
yet  be  detained  by  an  innkeeper  for  life.  Such  a 
proposition  my  Lord  Chief  Baron  said  was  mon- 
strous, and,  according  to  my  lord  Baron  Parke, 
was  startling." l 

"  For  my  part,  I  think  it  is  high  time  we  rejoined 
the  ladies,"  said  De  Gex,  with  the  air  of  a  man  sat- 
isfied with  what  he  had  heard. 

"  All  right ;  throw  law  to  the  dogs,  to  improve 
upon  the  immortal  bard." 

****** 

Our  return  drive  was  as  pleasant  as  that  of  the 

iSunbolf  v.  Alford,  3  Mees.  &  W.  248. 


142  WHAT   IS  A  LIEN? 

preceding  day,  except  that  we  might  well  have  ex- 
claimed, in  the  words  of  the  poet : 

"  How  the  dashed  dry  dust, 
Nebulous  nothing, 
Nettled  our  nasal 
Nostrils,  you  noodles  ! " 

En  route,  we  stopped  at  a  little  wayside  inn  for 
luncheon*  On  the  table  the  piece  de  resistance  was 
beefsteak. 

"  I  never,"  observed  De  G.,  "  see  beefsteak  but  I 
think  of  poor  old  George  III." 

"Had  he  a  particular  penchant  for  it?"  I  asked. 

"Not  that.  But  once,  when  his  intellect  was 
sadly  clouded,  he  was  breakfasting  at  Kew,  and 
the  conversation  turned  on  the  great  scarcity  of 
beef  in  England.  '  Why  don't  the  people  plant 
more  beef  ? '  asked  his  majesty.  Of  course  he  was 
told  that  beef  could  not  be  raised  from  seed  or 
slips;  but  he  seemed  incredulous,  and,  taking  some 
pieces  of  steak,  he  went  out  into  the  garden  and 
planted  them.  Next  morning  he  visited  the  spot 
to  see  if  the  beef  had  sprouted,  and  finding  some 
snails  crawling  about,  lie  took  thorn  for  small  oxen, 
and  joyfully  exclaimed  to  his  wife:  'Here  they 
are;  here  they  are,  Charlotte — horns  and  all ! ' ' 

"  Poor  fellow — poor  fellow ! " 

By  and  by,  apple  dumplings  appeared.  "Ha!" 
I  exclaimed,  "here  arc  more  reminders  of  the  poor 
old  king!  How  his  Britannic  majesty  used  to  puz- 
zle over  the  problem  of  how  the  apples  got  inside 
the  pastry." 


WHAT    IS  A  LIEN  ?  143 

"  The  Chinese  cooks  would  have  bewildered  him 
still  more  with  some  of  their  ingenious  perform- 
ance?," remarked  De  Gex. 

"  In  what  respect?  "  queried  the  ladies. 

"  At  a  recent  banquet  in  San  Francisco,  an  orange 
was  placed  beside  the  plate  of  each  guest.  The 
fruit,  to  an  ordinary  observer,  appeared  like  any 
other  oranges  ;  but,  on  being  cut  open,  they  were 
found  to  contain,  mirabile  dictu " 

"What?"  asked  my  wife. 

"  Excuse  me,  I  should  not  have  quoted  Latin. 
They  were  found  to  contain  five  different  kinds  of 
delicate  jellies.  Of  course,  every  one  was  puzzled, 
first  of  all,  to  find  how  the  jelly  got  in;  and  giving 
up  that  as  a  conundrum  too  difficult  to  be  solved, 
he  found  himself  in  a  worse  quandary  over  the 
problem  as  to  how  the  pulpy  part  of  the  orange 
got  out.  Colored  eggs  were  served  up,  and  inside 
of  them  were  found  nuts,  jellies,  meats,  and  con- 
fectionery." 

"  Wonderful  men  those  Celestials ! "  I  exclaimed. 
"  They  must  have  got  such  notions  from  the  ban- 
queting table  of  Jove  himself." 

"I  thought  they  indulged  in  nothing  nicer  than 
cats  or  dogs,  rats  or  mice,  with  an  occasional  dash 
of  bird's-nest  soup,"  said  Mrs.  De  Gex. 

"Altogether  a  mistaken  notion,"  returned  her 
husband. 

Tea  was  the  beverage.  I  nearly  upset  the  table 
as  I  reached  over  for  the  teapot,  whereupon  my 
comrade  exclaimed  in  the  words  of  Gibber's  rhap- 
sody: 


144  WHAT    IS  A   LIEN? 

"  Tea,  thou  soft,  thou  sober,  sage  and  venerable 
liquid;  thou  female  tongue-running,  smile-smooth- 
ing, heart-opening,  wink-tipping  cordial,  to  whose 
glorious  insipidity  we  owe  the  happiest  moments 
of  our  lives,  let  me  fall  prostrate." 

"  Time's  up,"  I  said,  as  straightening  myself  I 
swallowed  another  cupful. 

***** 

When  we  were  again  fairly  under  way  and  the 
ladies  were  quietly  talking  some  scandal,  sotto  voce, 
I  said  to  De  Gex :  "  Referring  again  to  the  inn- 
keeper's lien " 

"Let  us  have  no  more  about  it,"  he  replied 
promptly.  "  Honestly,  I  must  say  that  you  are  not 
a  Paganini  and  cannot  please  by  always  playing 
upon  one  string." 

"  Perhaps  not,  but  as  rare  old  Ben  Jonson  re- 
marked, '  when  I  take  the  humor  of  a  thing  once,  I 
am  like  a  tailor's  needle — I  go  through,'  and  a  little 
more  information  on  that  important  subject  may 
prove  useful  to  you  some  day." 

"If  you  will  talk  on  that  dry  subject,  kindly  in- 
form me  why  publicans  have  a  lien  at  all,"  said  my 
friend. 

"  Well,  you  know  that  a  lien  is  the  right  of  a 
man  to  whom  any  chattel  is  given  to  detain  it 
until  some  pecuniary  demand  upon  or  in  respect  of 
it  has  been  satisfied  by  the  owner,  and  as  the  law 
treats  an  innkeeper  as  a  public  servant,  and  imposes 
upon  him  certain  duties — making  him,  for  example, 
receive  all  guests  who  are  willing  and  able  to 
pay,  and  are  unobjectionable  on  moral,  pecuniary, 


WHAT    IS  A  LIEN?  145 

or  hygienic  grounds,  and  bestow  on  the  preserva- 
tion of  their  goods  an  extraordinary  amount  of 
care  —  so,  to  compensate  him  for  this  obligation, 
the  law  gives  him  the  power  of  detaining  his  guest's 
goods,  (except  such  as  are  in  the  visitor's  actual 
possession  and  custody,  in  his  hand  for  example,) 
until  he  pays  for  the  entertainment  afforded,  in- 
cluding, of  course,  remuneration  for  the  care  of 
those  goods.  The  lien  extends  to  all  the  goods  and 
chattels  of  the  guest,  even  those  especially  handed 
over  to  the  host  and  placed  by  him  apart  from  the 
personal  goods  of  his  visitor." l 

"  Then,  I  suppose  an  innkeeper  has  a  lien  upon 
the  goods  of  a  guest  only." 

"  Exactly  so  ;  so  that  if  he  receive  the  person  as 
a  friend,  or  a  boarder,2  or  under  any  special  agree- 
ment,3 or  an  arrangement  to  pay  at  a  future  time,4 
he  has  no  lien  upon  the  goods,  for  he  has  no  re- 
sponsibility with  regard  to  them.  In  one  case, 
however,  it  was  decided  that  if  a  man  came  to  an 
hotel  as  a  guest,  his  subsequently  arranging  to 
board  by  the  week  would  not  alter  the  character  in 
which  he  was  originally  received,  nor  take  away 
the  host's  right  of  lien."6 

"  Suppose  things  are  brought  which  the  innkeeper 
is  not  bound  to  receive — what  then  ?  " 

iMulliner  v.  Florence,  L.  E.  3  Q.  B.  D.  485. 

2Drope  v.  Thaire,  Latch,  127;  Grinstone  v.  Innkeeper,  Hetl. 
49 ;  Pollock  v.  Landis,  36  Iowa,  051  ;  Hursh  v.  Byers,  29  Mo. 
469 ;  Ewartu.  Stark,  8  Rich.  (S.  C.)423. 

«  Wintertnute  v.  Clarke,  5  Sandf .  242. 

<  Wharton,  p.  123. 

6  Berkshire  Co.  v.  Proctor,  7  Cush.  417. 
13. 


146  WHAT   IS  A  LIEN  ? 

"  Where  he  actually  takes  in  goods  for  a  guest, 
whether  he  were  legally  bound  to  do  so  or  not,  he 
is  responsible  for  their  safety,  and  so  has  a  lien 
upon  them.1  But  if  anything  is  left  with  him, 
merely  to  take  care  of,  by  one  who  does  not  him- 
self put  up  at  the  house,  the  poor  innkeeper  has  no 
right  to  keep  them  until  paid  for  his  trouble ; 2  un- 
less, indeed,  it  is  a  horse,  or  other  animal,  out  of 
the  keep  of  which  he  can  receive  a  benefit.3  And 
you  heard  old  Blackstone  say,  this  A.  M.,  that  the 
proprietor  is  not  bound  to  inquire  whether  or  not 
the  guest  is  the  real  owner  of  the  goods ; 4  and  if 
the  guest  turns  out  a  thief,  still  the  true  owner  can- 
not get  back  his  property  without  paying  the 
charges  upon  it.5  In  Georgia,  however,  it  has  been 
held  that  the  innkeeper  has  no  lien  against  the  true 
owner,  except  for  the  charges  upon  the  specific  ar- 
ticle on  which  the  lien  is  claimed."  6 

"  But  supposing  he  really  knows  that  the  guest 
is  not  the  owner?"  said  my  companion. 

"Then  he  has  no  lien.  Broadwood,  the  cele- 
brated piano  manufacturer,  loaned  a  piano  to  M. 
Hababier,  who  was  staying  at  a  hotel.  The  court 
held  that,  as  it  was  furnished  to  the  guest  for  his 
temporary  use  by  a  third  party  and  the  innkeeper 

iTrelfall  v.  Berwick,  41  Law  J.  Q.  B.  266  ;  affirmed,  L.  R. 
10  Q.  B.  (Exch.)210. 

2  Bennett  v.  Mellor,  5  T.  E.  273. 

3  Allen  v.  Smith,  12  Com.  B.  K  S.  638  ;  Peet  v.  McGraw,  25 
Wend.  654. 

4  Johnson  v.  Hill,  3  Stark.  172  ;  Kent  v.  Shuckard,  2  Barn. 
&  Adol.  805. 

5  Johnson  v.  Hill,  supra. 

«  Domestic  Sewing  Machine  Co.  v.  Walters,  50  Ga.  573. 


WHAT   IS  A  LIEN?  147 

knew  it  belonged  to  such  party,  and  as  Hababier 
had  not  brought  it  to  the  place  as  his  own,  either 
upon  his  coming  to  or  while  staying  at  the  inn,  the 
proprietor  had  no  lien  upon  it.1  But  of  course,  if 
a  servant,  or  an  agent,  in  the  course  of  his  employ- 
ment, come  to  an  inn  and  runs  up  a  bill,  the  pro- 
prietor has  a  lien  upon  his  master's  goods  in  the 
servant's  custody."  2 

"  How  long  does  this  right  last  ?  " 

"Only  so  long  as  the  goods  remain  in  the  inn. 
If  the  guest  goes  away  and  then  comes  back  again, 
the  publican  cannot  retain  them  for  the  prior  debt.3 
If,  however,  the  unsophisticated  landlord  is  be- 
guiled into  letting  them  go  by  a  fraudulent  repre- 
sentation, his  right  remains ; 4  and  if  they  are  taken 
away,  he  may  follow  them  if  he  does  not  loiter.5 
Delays  are  always  dangerous,  except  in  cases  of 
matrimony.  Of  course,  a  tender  of  the  money 
claimed  extinguishes  the  lien ; 6  but  it  must  be  a 
valid  tender.  Tossing  down  a  lot  of  money  on  a 
table,  and  offering  it  if  the  innkeeper  will  take  it  in 
full  of  the  bill,  is  not  a  proper  tender.7  Sometimes, 
if  too  much  is  claimed,  or  the  claim  is  on  a  wrong 
account,  a  tender  may  not  be  necessary."  8 

1  Broadwood  v.  Granara,  10  Ex.  423.    See,  also,  Carlisle  v. 
Quattlebaum,  2  Bail.  452  ;  Fox  v.  McGregor,  11  Barf>.  41. 

2  Cross  on  Lien,  p.  30  ;  Snead  v.  Watkins,  1  Com.  B.  N.  S.  267. 

3  Byall  v. ,  Atk.  165.    See,  also,  Chapter  VII. 

4  Manning  v.  Hollenbeck,  27  \Vis.  202. 

5Dieas  v.  Stockley,  7  Car.  &  P.  587  ;  Bristol  v.  Wilsmore,  1 
Barn.  &  C.  514. 

6  Katcliff  v.  Da  vies,  Cro.  Jac.  244. 
?  Gordon  v.  Cox,  7  Car.  &  P.  172. 
8  Per  Willes.  J.,  Allen  v.  Smith,  12  Com.  B.  N.  S.  644. 


148  WHAT   IS  A  LIEN? 

"  Must  the  man  say  why  he  refuses  to  give  up 
the  goods?" 

"  If  he  gives  a  reason  for  detaining  them  other 
than  his  right  of  lien,  he  waives  that,  and  it  is  gone ; 
still,  merely  omitting  to  mention  it  when  the  goods 
are  demanded  will  not  prevent  him  enforcing  it."  * 

"  Could  not  a  guest  get  off  by  paying  a  small 
sum  on  account  ?  " 

"  No ;  for  then  a  farthing  in  cash  would  destroy 
the  right ; 2  but  taking  a  note  payable  at  a  future 
day  will  put  a  stop  to  it."  3 

"  I  believe  that  the  landlord  cannot  sell  the  goods 
seized,"  suggested  my  comrade. 

"No,  except  by  consent  or  operation  of  law."4 

"  Is  there  no  limit  to  the  amount  for  which  the 
lien  can  exist?" 

"  That  point  was  disposed  of  in  a  case  where  a 
young  fellow's  mother  asked  a  hotel-keeper  not  to 
allow  her  son,  who  was  a  guest  in  the  house,  more 
than  a  certain  quantity  of  brandy  and  water  per 
diem,  yet  mine  host  supplied  the  youth  with  con- 
siderably more  of  that  beverage  than  was  named. 
When  the  bill  was  disputed,  the  judge  held  that 
a  landlord  was  not  bound  to  examine  the  nature  of 
the  articles  ordered  by  a  guest  before  he  supplied 
them;  but  might  furnish  whatever  was  ordered, 
and  that  the  guest  was  bound  to  pay  for  them,  pro- 

1  Owen  v.  Knight,  5  Scott,  307. 

2  Hodgson  »;.  Loy,  7  T.  R.  660. 
3Horncastle  v.  Farran,  2  Barn.  &  Aid.  407. 

4  Case  v.  Fogg,  46  Mo.  66;  Thames  Iron  "VV.  Co.  v.  Patent 
Derrick  Co.  1  Johns.  &  W.  97;  Mulliner  v.  Florence  L.  K.  3 
Q.  B.  484. 


WHAT   IS  A  LIEN?  149 

vided  he  was  possessed  of  reason,  and  not  an  in- 
fant." ! 

"  Oh,  then,  a  juvenile's  goods  and  chattels  cannot 
be  kept  for  his  little  hotel  bill  ?  Another  privilege 
gone  forever  with  the  happy  days  of  childhood," 
said  Ee  Gex. 

"  I  am  not  quite  so  sure.  In  Kentucky,  it  was 
held  that  they  could  be,  if  the  entertainment  was 
furnished  in  good  faith,  without  the  knowledge  that 
the  youngster  was  acting  improperly  and  contrary 
to  the  wishes  of  his  guardian ;  and  it  was  even  held 
that  the  innkeeper  had  a  lien  for  money  given  to 
the  boy  and  expended  by  him  for  necessaries,"  2  I 
remarked. 

"  I  trust,"  said  my  companion,  "  that  there  is  not 
very  much  more  to  be  said  on  the  subject.  I  feel 
that  I  am  growing  thin,  and  will  soon  require  a  lean- 
to  to  support  me." 

"  You  are  like  the  rest  of  the  world,  ingrate  and 
thankless.  Here  I  have  been  giving  you  freely  of 
what  has  cost  me  long,  weary  hours  of  study  and 
gallons  of  petroleum,  and  still  you  grumble.  Only 
two  points  more  would  I  endeavor  to  impress  upon 
your  memory,  the  knowledge  of  which  may  prove 
to  be  worth  to  you  fully  the  cost  of  this  drive  of 
ours." 

"  Well,  I  will  restrain  myself  and  lend  a  listen- 
ing ear." 

"In  the  first  place,  if  an  innkeeper  should  retain 
your  trunks  for  your  hotel  bill,  you  need  pay  him 

1  Proctor  v.  Nicholson,  7  Car.  &  P.  67. 

2  Watson  v.  Cross,  2  Duv.  (Ken.)  147. 


150  WHAT   IS  A  LIEN  ? 

nothing  for  his  trouble  in  taking  care  of  them  there- 
after ;  when  you  are  flush  again,  you  may  call,  and 
on  paying  the  original  amount  due,  demand  your 
traps.1  In  that  way,  you  see,  you  may  sometimes 
get  rid  of  the  trouble  of  carrying  your  baggage 
about  with  you.  Then,  again,  whenever  possible, 
travel  in  company,  with  all  the  baggage  in  one 
trunk;  let  the  one  who  owns  the  trunk  pay  his 
bill,  and  then  all  may  go  on  their  way  rejoicing; 
for  where  a  paterfamilias  took  his  daughters  to 
an  hotel  and  the  board  of  all  was  charged  to  the 
old  man,  (who  afterward  became  insolvent)  it  was 
well  decided  that  the  trunks  of  one  of  the  girls 
could  not  be  detained  for  the  whole  amount  due 
by  the  party.  Every  man  for  himself,  seems  to  be 
the  rule."  2 

"What  are  you  two  men  gossiping  about?" 
suddenly  broke  in  Mrs.  Lawyer,  she  and  her  com- 
panion having  fully  exhausted  their  stock  of  chit- 
chat. 

"  Gossiping ! "  said  De  Gex ;  "  no  indeed ;  as  Sir 
Boyle  iRoche  would  say,  I  deny  the  allegation, 
and  defy  the  allegator." 

"  None  with  a  properly  constituted  mind  would 
indulge  in  such  a  thing;  for  George  Eliot  well 
defines  gossip  to  be  '  a  sort  of  smoke  which  comes 
from  the  dirty  tobacco-pipes  of  those  who  diffuse 
it,'  and  remarks  that  it  proves  nothing  but  the  bad 
taste  of  the  smoker,"  I  added. 

1  Somes  v.  British  Emp.  Sh.  Co.  8  H  L.  Caa.  338;  El.  B.  &E. 
353.    But  see,  in  cases  of  horses,  p.  129. 

2  Clayton  v.  Butterfield,  10  Eich.  423. 


WHAT  IS  A  LIEN?  151 

The  ladies  seemed  conscience-stricken,  for  neither 
replied,  and  for  some  time  we  all  sat  in  silence,  en- 
joying the  delicious  coolness  of  eventide ;  each  was 
busied  in  private  castle-building,  or  "  watching  out 
the  light  of  sunset,  and  the  opening  of  that  bead- 
roll  which  some  oriental  poet  describes  as  God's 
call  to  the  little  stars,  who  each  answer,  '  Here 
am  I ! '" 


CHAPTER  IX. 
DUTIES  OF  A  BOARDING-HOUSE  KEEPER. 

Suns  had  risen  and  set ;  moons  had  waxed  and 
waned,  and  Mrs.  Lawyer  and  myself  were  now 
settled  in  a  boarding-house.  I  will  not  say  com- 
fortably, for,  although  never  in  my  youth  did  I 
own  a  little  hatchet,  still  I  have  read  in  my  younger 
days  the  fifth  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

My  powers  of  description  are  exceedingly  limited, 
so  I  will  not  attempt  to  sketch,  for  the  benefit  of 
my  readers,  either  the  house  itself,  its  furnishings, 
its  occupants,  or  the  entertainment  provided  as  a 
quid  pro  their  dollars.  Of  the  furniture,  I  will  only 
say  that  the  carpet  on  the  parlor  floor  "  was  bediz- 
ened like  a  Rlcaree  Indian — all  red  chalk,  yellow 
ochre,  and  cock's  feathers."  Of  our  fellow  boarders, 
'tis  sufficient  to  remark  that  some,  on  one  or  two 
occasions,  had,  perhaps,  worn  kid  gloves ;  most  of 
the  men  were  "  self-made,  whittled  into  shape  with 
their  own  jack-knives";  the  ladies — but  de  feminis 
nil  nisi  bonum. 

Of  the  food  provided  for  the  inner  man,  need 
more  be  said  than  that  the  poultry,  which  appeared 
on  the  second  day  of  our  sojourn,  would  have  seemed 
to  Mr.  Baguet's  fastidious  eye,  suitable  for  Mrs.  B.'s 
birthday  dinner  ?  If  there  be  any  truth  in  adages, 
they  certainly  were  not  caught  by  chaff.  Every 
kind  of  finer  tendon  and  ligament  that  it  is  in  the 

[152] 


DUTIES  OF  A  BOARDING-HOUSE    KEEPER.  153 

nature  of  poultry  to  possess,  was  developed  in 
these  specimens  in  the  singular  form  of  guitar 
strings.  Their  limbs  appeared  to  have  struck 
roots  into  their  breasts  and  bodies,  as  aged  trees 
strike  roots  into  the  earth.  Their  legs  were  so 
hard  as  to  encourage  the  idea  that  they  must  have 
devoted  the  greater  part  of  their  long  and  arduous 
lives  to  pedestrian  exercises  and  the  walking  of 
matches.  No  one  could  have  cleaned  the  drum- 
sticks without  being  of  ostrich  descent." 

A.b  uno  disce  omnes.  Ex  pede  Ilerculem.  From 
these  three  hints  let  each  one,  for  himself,  erect 
images  of  our  boarding-house,  our  fellow-boarders, 
and  our  meals,  as  a  Cuvier  would  reconstruct  a  me- 
gatherium from  a  tooth,  or  an  Agassiz  draw  a  pic- 
ture of  an  unknown  fish  from  a  single  scale.  But 
I  must  not  dip  my  pen  in  vinegar,  nor  tip  it  with 
wormwood,  when  I  write  of  boarding-houses  and 
their  industrious  and  unfortunate  keepers.  These 
providers  of  food  and  lodging  seem  to  be  the  de- 
scendants of  Ishmael,  their  hand  being  against 
every  one  to  eke  out  their  little  profits,  and  every 
one's  hand  being  against  them.  Let  me  be  an 
honorable  exception  to  the  general  rule,  and  act 
like  the  Good  Samaritan,  although,  by  the  way,  that 
worthy  patronized  a  cheap  hotel,  not  a  boarding- 
house. 

***** 

It  has  ever  been  a  hobby  of  mine  that  a  door — 
hall  or  otherwise — is  intended  to  be  shut  (if  not,  a 
hole  in  the  wall  would  answer  every  purpose  and 
be  cheaper).  Well,  one  great  source  of  trouble 


154  DUTIES   OP  A   BOARDIXG-HOT7SE    KEEPER. 

with  me  at  Madame  Dee's  private  boarding-house 
was  that  the  domestic-of-all-work  was  iu  the  con- 
stant habit  of  leaving  the  hall  door  ajar  whenever 
she  made  her  exit  on  to  the  street  in  her  hunt  for 
butter,  eggs,  or  milk.  A  fellow-boarder,  seeing  my 
anxiety  on  this  point,  asked  me  if  I  was  afraid  of 
some  one  stealing  Mrs.  Lawyer. 

"  No,"  I  replied,  "  I  am  more  afraid  of  my  over- 
coat. Although  not  very  new,  it  is  still  servicea- 
ble." 

"  Well,  sir,"  said  a  youthful  reader  of  Blackstone 
and  Story,  "  if  any  one  feloniously  and  wickedly 
takes  away  your  bad  habit  could  you  not  deduct 
the  value  of  it  on  your  next  week's  settlement  with 
Mrs.  Dee  ?  An  innkeeper  would  be  liable  in  such 
a  case." 

"  My  dear  young  friend,"  I  replied,  "  you  have 
as  yet  acquired  only  the  A  B  C  of  professional 
knowledge.  The  liability  of  a  boarding-house 
keeper  for  the  goods  of  a  boarder  is  by  no  means 
the  same  as  that  of  an  innkeeper." 

Here  I  paused,  but -the  first  speaker  asked  me 
to  proceed  and  explain  the  difference,  so  I  spake 
somewhat  as  follows : 

"  Once  upon  a  time  Catherine  Dansey  went  to 
the  boarding-house  of  Elizabeth  F.  Richardson 
with  her  luggage,  and  was  duly  received  within 
the  mansion.  One  day  some  of  Mrs.  Dausey's 
goods,  chattels,  or  knick-knacks  were  stolen,  and 
when  the  matter  was  investigated  it  appeared  that 
the  thief  had  entered  through  the  front  door — 
which  had  been  left  open  by  the  servant — and  that 


DUTIES  OF  A   BOAKDING-HOtrSE    KEEPER.  155 

Mrs.  Richardson  knew  that  her  Biddy  was  in  the 
constant  habit  of  neglecting  to  shut  the  door. 
Mrs.  II.  would  not  settle  the  affair  amicably,  so 
Mrs.  D.  had  the  law  of  her.1  At  the  trial  the  judge 
told  the  jury  that  a  boarding-house  keeper  was 
bound  to  take  due  and  reasonable  care  about  the 
safe-keeping  of  a  guest's  goods ;  and  then,  it  hav- 
ing struck  his  lordship  that  perhaps  his  twelve 
enlightened  countrymen,  who  sat  before  him  in  the 
box,  did  not  know  too  well  what  due  care  might 
be,  he  proceeded  to  explain  to  them  that  it  was  such 
care  as  a  prudent  housekeeper  would  take  in  the 
management  of  his  own  house  for  the  protection  of 
his  own  goods.  The  judge  went  on  to  say  that 
Mrs.  Richardson's  servant  leaving  the  door  open 
might  be  a  want  of  such  care,  but  the  mistress  was 
not  answerable  for  such  negligence,  unless  she  her- 
self had  been  guilty  of  some  neglect  (as  in  keeping 
such  a  servant  with  a  knowledge  of  her  habits). 
The  jury,  as  in  duty  bound,  took  the  law  from  his 
lordship  and  said  that  Dame  R.  was  not  liable." 

"  Then  Mrs.  Dansey  had  to  perform  to  the  tune 
of  a  nice  little  bill  of  costs,  and  grin  and  bear  it," 
remarked  the  embryo  Coke. 

"  She  was  rather  stubborn  about  it,  and  applied 
for  a  new  trial." 

"Did  she  get  it?"  asked  Coke  in  futuro. 

"No.  The  whole  four  judges  gave  it  as  their 
opinion  that  a  boarding-house  keeper  is  not  bound 
to  keep  a  guest's  baggage  safely  to  the  same  extent 
as  an  innkeeper,  but  that  the  law  implies  an  under- 

1  Dansey  t>.  Eichardaon,  3  El.  &  Bl.  144. 


156  DUTIES  OF  A   BOARDING-HOUSE    KEEPEB. 

taking  on  his  part  to  take  due  and  proper  care  of 
the  boarder's  belongings,  although  nothing  was  said 
about  it ;  and  that  neglecting  to  take  due  care  of 
an  outer  door  might  be  a  breach  of  such  duty." 

"But  did  they  say  what  due  and  proper  care 
amounted  to?"  was  queried. 

"  Yes ;  but,  as  doctors  often  do,  they  disagreed 
on  the  point.  Judge  Wightman  could  not  see  that 
a  boarding-house  keeper  is  a  bailee  of  the  goods  of 
his  guest  at  all,  or  that  he  is  bound  to  take  more 
care  of  them  (when  they  are  no  further  given  into 
his  care  than  by  being  in  his  house)  than  he  as  a 
prudent  man  would  take  of  his  own.  If  he  were 
guilty  of  negligence  in  the  selection  of  his  servants, 
or  in  keeping  such  as  he  might  well  distrust,  his 
lordship  said  that  he  could  hardly  be  considered  as 
taking  the  care  of  a  prudent  owner,  and  so  might 
be  liable  for  a  loss  occasioned  by  a  servant's  neg- 
lect. Erie,  J.,  said  that  as  there  was  no  delivery  of 
the  goods  by  Mrs.  D.  to  Mrs.  R.,  no  contract  to 
keep  them  with  care  and  deliver  them  again,  and 
nothing  paid  in  respect  of  the  goods,  there  was  no 
duty  of  keeping  them  placed  upon  Richardson. 
Judge  Coleridge  and  Lord  Campbell  looked  at  the 
case  through  spectacles  of  another  color  —  the  for- 
mer said  that  a  guest  at  such  a  house  is  entitled  to 
due  and  reasonable  care  absolutely ;  he  comes  to 
the  house  and  pays  his  money  for  certain  things  to 
be  rendered  in  return  ;  lie  stipulates  directly  with 
the  master,  having  no  control  himself  over  the  serv* 

'  O 

ants,  and  having  nothing  to  do  with  the  master's 
judiciousness  or  care  or  good  fortune  in  selecting 


DUTIES   OF   A   BOARDING-HOUSE    KEEPER.  157 

them ;  and  the  master  undertakes  to  the  guest  not 
merely  to  be  careful  in  the  choice  of  his  servants, 
but  absolutely  to  take  due  and  reasonable  care  of 
his  goods.  Lord  Campbell  said  that  he  could  not 
go  so  far  as  to  say  that  in  no  case  can  a  boarding- 
house  keeper  be  liable  for  the  loss  of  goods  through 
the  negligence  of  a  servant,  although  he  himself 
was  guiltless  of  any  negligence  in  hiring  or  keep- 
ing the  domestic.  If  one  employs  servants  to  keep 
the  outer  door  shut  when  there  is  danger  of  thieves, 
while  they  are  performing  that  duty  they  are  acting 
within  the  scope  of  their  employment,  and  he  is 
answerable  for  their  negligence.  He  is  not  answer- 
able for  the  consequences  of  a  felony,  or  even  a 
willful  trespass  committed  by  them ;  but  the  gen- 
eral rule  is,  that  the  master  is  responsible  for  the 
negligence  of  his  servants  while  engaged  in  offices 
which  he  employs  them  to  do  —  and  his  lordship 
(for  I  have  been  quoting  his  sentiments)  said  that 
he  was  not  aware  how  the  keeper  of  a  board, 
ing  house  could  be  an  exception  to  the  general 
rule." 

I  stopped  here,  and  was  rather  chagrined  to  catch 
one  of  those  present  saying  to  another  — 

"  Do  you  remember  what  old  Coates  said  about 
his  wife?" 

"No  — what?" 

"  '  M-Mrs.  C-Coates  is  a  f-f unny  old  watch.  She 
b-broke  her  chain  a  g-good  while  ago,  and  has  been 
r-running  down  ever  since  ;  she  must  have  a  main- 
spring a  mile  long.'  This  is  apropos  of  our  friend 
here  when  he  gets  started  on  a  legal  point." 

14. 


158  DUTIES   OF  A  BOARDING-HOUSE    KEEPER. 

"And  he  is  always  starting  some  such  shoppy 
subject ;  like  Adelaide  Proctor's  young  man  — 

'  He  cracks  no  egg  without  a  legal  sigh, 
Nor  eats  of  beef  but  thinking  on  the  law,'  " 

was  the  response  wafted  into  the  recesses  of  my 
auricular  appendages  —  so  chilling  it  was  that  I  in- 
continently sneezed  thrice. 

"  There  seems,"  said  the  student,  "  to  have  been 
a  decided  diversity  of  opinion  among  the  learned 
judges  in  that  case." 

"Yes,  indeed,"  I  replied.  "But  the  point  has 
been  made  clear  in  a  more  recent  case,  in  which  sll 
the  judges  took  the  same  view  of  the  extent  of  the 
liability." 

"  What  was  that  decision,  sir  ?  " 

"  That  the  law  imposes  no  obligation  on  a  lodging- 
house  keeper  to  take  care  of  the  goods  of  his  boarder. 
A  lodger  who  was  just  about  to  change  his  quarters, 
was  out  of  his  room,  and  the  landlord  allowed 
a  stranger  to  enter  to  look  at  it ;  the  latter  carried 
off  some  of  the  boarder's  property,  and  when  the 
owner  sued  the  landlord  the  court  gave  him  to  un- 
derstand that  he  must  himself  bear  the  loss.  Earle, 
C.  J.,  said  that  the  judges  had  decided  that  even  if 
the  things  had  been  stolen  by  a  member  of  the 
household  the  proprietor  would  not  be  liable.  He 
went  on  to  remark  that  he  was  most  particularly 
averse  to  affirming,  for  the  first  time,  that  a  lodging- 
house  keeper  has  the  duty  cast  upon  him  of  taking 
care  of  his  guest's  goods  ;  he  saw  great  difficulties 

i  Holder  v.  Soulby,  8  G.  B.  N.  S.  254. 


DUTIES  OF  A  BOAKDING-HOUSB    KEEPER.  159 

in  so  holding,  and  thought  it  would  be  casting  upon 
him  an  undefined  responsibility  which  would  be 
most  inconvenient;  considering  that  lodgers  con- 
sist of  all  classes — from  the  highest  to  the  lowest — 
one  could  hardly  exaggerate  the  mischief  that  would 
ensue  from  holding  the  proprietor  liable.  It  would 
be  impossible,  his  lordship  continued,  to  lay  down 
any  definite  test  of  liability ;  each  case  must  be  left 
to  the  discretion  or  caprice  of  a  jury ;  the  liability 
of  the  keeper  of  the  house  must  vary  according  to 
the  situation  of  the  premises  and  a  variety  of  cir- 
cumstances too  numerous  to  mention.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  law  is  that  the  lodger  must  take 
care  of  his  own  goods,  it  only  imposes  upon  him  the 
same  care  which  he  is  bound  to  take  when  he  walks 
the  streets  ;  he  may  always  secure  his  valuables  by 
carrying  them  about  with  him,  or  by  placing  them 
specially  in  the  custody  of  the  keeper  of  the  house." 

"  But  it  appears  rather  hard  to  compel  a  man  to 
carry  his  goods  about  with  him  wherever  he  goes, 
or  else  hand  them  over  to  the  boarding-house  keeper 
who  might  be  down  in  the  kitchen  cooking  dinner 
or  washing  cups  and  saucers;  besides,  she  or  he 
might  refuse  to  take  care  of  them,"  captiously  re- 
marked one  of  the  company. 

"Notwithstanding  all  that,  I  have  told  you  the 
law  correctly,  and  Byles,  J.,  remarked  once  that  a 
contrary  decision  would  cast  upon  the  proprietor 
*  a  frightful  amount  of  liability,' "  I  replied. 

"Did  the  judges  in  the  case  you  just  referred  to 
say  anything  about  the  open  door  case?"  ques- 
tioned the  earnest  inquirer  after  knowledge. 


160  DUTIES   OP  A  BOABDING-HOUSE    KEEPEB. 

"  Yes,  and  held  that  the  whole  tenor  of  the  judg- 
ment in  it  was  that  a  boarding-house  keeper  is  not 
bound  to  take  such  reasonable  degree  of  care  of  the 
goods  of  his  guest  as  a  prudent  man  may  reason- 
ably be  expected  to  take  of  his  own." 

"  It  seems  strange,"  urged  the  youth — by  the  way, 
a  careless,  heedless  young  fellow  was  he — "  that 
such  people  should  in  no  way  be  liable  to  look  after 
the  property  of  their  boarders." 

"  I  did  not  say  exactly  that.  They  are  of  course 
liable  where  a  loss  of  a  lodger's  goods  has  resulted 
from  gross  negligence  on  their  part,  or  they  them- 
selves have  been  guilty  of  some  misdeed."  1 

"  Those  two  cases,  I  think,"  said  one  who  had 
been  a  silent  listener  hitherto,  "  were  both  decided 
in  England  ;  but  what  say  our  American  judges  on 
the  point  ?  " 

"  So  far  as  they  have  spoken,"  I  replied,  "  they 
have,  as  a  rule,  corroborated  and  agreed  with  the 
sentiments  of  their  ermined  and  bewicrsred  fellows 

oo 

across  the  ocean.  The  Supreme  Court  of  Tennessee 
decided  that  an  innkeeper  was  not  liable  for  the 
clothing  of  a  boarder  stolen  from  his  room,  without 
the  former's  fault,  although  he  would  be  for  that  of 
a  guest ;  2  and  the  judge  gave  as  his  reason  for 
making  the  distinction  that  a  passenger  or  way- 
faring man  may  be  an  entire  stranger  in  the  place, 
and  must  put  up  and  lodge  at  the  inn  to  which  his 
day's  journey  may  bring  him,  and  so  it  is  important 
that  he  should  be  protected  by  the  most  stringent 

1  Idem— Earle,  C.  J. 

2  Manning  v.  Wells,  9  Humph.  746. 


DUTIES   OF   A   BOARDIXG-HOUSE    KEEPER.  161 

rules  of  law  enforcing  the  liability  of  hotel-keepers ; 
but  as  a  boarder  does  not  need  such  protection  the 
law  does  not  afford  it,  and  it  is  sufficient  to  give  him 
a  remedy  when  he  proves  the  innkeeper  guilty  of 
culpable  neglect.  And  in  Kentucky,  where  a  regu- 
lar boarder  at  an  hotel  deposited  gold  with  the  pro- 
prietor, who  put  it  in  his  safe,  into  which  thieves 
broke  and  stole,  the  court  held  that  the  hotel- 
keeper  was  not  liable  as  an  innkeeper,  but  only  as  a 
depositary  without  reward,  and  as  no  gross  negli- 
gence was  shown  the  poor  boarder  failed  in  his  at- 
tempt to  recover  his  lost  cash  in  that  way.1  I  had 
better  tell  you,  however,  that  in  New  York  it  has 
very  recently  been  held  that  a  boarding-house 
keeper  is  liable  for  the  loss  of  a  boarder's  property 
by  theft,  committed  by  a  stranger  allowed  to  enter 
the  boarder's  room  by  a  servant  of  the  house,2  and 
that  it  is  his  duty  to  exercise  such  care  over  a  board- 
er's goods  as  a  prudent  man  would  over  his  own." 

"  Well,  will  you  please  tell  me  what  is  the  differ- 
ence between  a  boarding-house  and  an  inn  ?  "  asked 
one  of  the  other  boarders. 

"  It  would  afford  me  great  pleasure  to  answer 
your  question  at  another  time,  but  at  the  present  I 
an  sorry  to  say  that  duty  calls  me  and  I  must  go." 

Leaving  my  listeners  to  digest  the  law  lecture  I 
had  delivei'ed  to  them,  I  repaired  to  the  best  par- 
lor, and  there  found  Mrs.  Lawyer  and  another  lady 
in  a  state  of  white  heat  over  the  performances  of  a 

1  Johnson  v.  Eeynolds,  3  Ken.  257.    See,  also,  Chamberlain 
v .  Masterson,  26  Aia.  371. 

2  Smith  v.  Reed,  6  Daly,  33. 


162  DUTIES  OF  A   BOARDING-HOUSE    KEEPER. 

boarder  who  occupied  the  next  room — one  of  the 
genus  referred  to  by  Coleridge  when  he  said, 

"  Swans  sing  before  they  die  ;  'twere  no  bad  thing 
Should  certain  persons  die  before  they  sing  " — 

who  was  constantly  carolling  or  trilling  with  a 
voice  of  the  most  rasping  kind,  or  playing  upon  a 
most  atrocious  accordeon,  to  the  discomfiture  and 
annoyance  of  the  other  guests. 

"  Can  that  man  not  be  made  to  keep  quiet  ?  " 
asked  my  wife. 

"  Doubtless,  my  dear,  if  you  would  go  and  talk 
to  him  sweetly,  he  would  cease  his  songs  and  lay 
aside  his  wind  instrument,"  I  gallantly  replied. 

"  Don't  tease  me,"  she  said.  "  Here  we  both  have 
got  splitting  headaches  through  that  horrid  noise." 

"  I  thought  from,  your  manner  you  seemed  a  lit- 
tle cracked,  my  love  ;  what  can  I  do  ?  "  I  queried. 

"You  ought  to  know — you  are  a  lawyer;  can't 
you  make  him  stop  ?  " 

"  Well,  really  I  don't  know.  I  remember  that  in 
England  a  man  had  the  constant  ringing  of  a  chime 
of  bells  in  a  neighboring  chapel  stopped  on  account 
of  the  annoyance  and  discomfort  it  caused  him." l 

"  I  am  sure  that  the  noise  of  bells  is  as  heavenly 
music  compared  to  the  infernal  discords  produced 
by  that  man,"  remarked  the  other  lady,  who,  like 
Talmage's  friend,  Miss  Stinger,  was  sharp  as  a 
hornet,  prided  herself  on  saying  things  that  cut, 
could  not  bear  the  sight  of  a  pair  of  pants,  loathed 
a  shaving  apparatus,  and  thought  Eve  would  have 

i  Soltan  v.  De  Held,  2  Sim.  K  S.  133. 


DUTIES  OF  A  BOARDING-HOUSE    KEEPER.  163 

shown  a  better  capacity  for  housekeeping  if  she 
had — the  first  time  she  used  her  broom — swept 
Adam  out  of  Paradise. 

"  Yes,  dear  madam,  the  .noise  of  belles  is  often 
most  delightful ;  and  the  happiest  day  pf  my  life 
was  the  one  on  which  I  was  engaged  in  ringing  a, 
sweet  village  belle,  who  shall  be  nameless,"  I  re- 
plied, knowing  that  the  lady  hated  everything  likj 
gallantry,  and  I  politely  waved  my  hand  towards 
Mrs.  L.,  who  exclaimed  : 

"  You  stupid,  you !  Tell  me  directly  what  we 
can  do ! " 

"  In  the  English  case  I  mentioned,  the  man  got 
an  injunction  from  the  Court  of  Chancery  to  re- 
strain the  noise ;  but  in  another  case  in  North  Car- 
olina,1 where  a  most  pious  member  of  a  Methodist 
church  was  indicted  for  disturbing  divine  service 
by  singing  in  such  a  way  that  one  part  of  the  con- 
gregation laughed,  and  the  other  part  got  mad — 
the  irreligious  and  frivolous  enjoyed  it  as  fun, 
while  the  serious  and  devout  were  indignant — al- 
though the  jury  found  the  man  guilty,  the  court 
reversed  the  verdict,  as  the  brother  did  not  desire 
to  disturb  the  worship  but  was  religiously  doing 
his  best.  So  here  our  poor  neighbor  is  doing  what 
he  can  to  produce  a  '  concord  of  sweet  sounds.'  On 
another  occasion,  the  judges  in  the  same  State  held 
that  the  noise  of  a  drum  or  fife  in  a  procession  was 
not  a  nuisance.2  But  then  the  wearers  of  the  er- 
mine in  that  State  seem  almost  indifferent  to  sounds 

1  State  v.  Linkham,  69  N.  C.  214. 

2  State  v.  Hughes,  72  N.  C.  25. 


104  DUTIES  OF  A   BOARDING-HOUSE    KEEPEB. 

of  any  kind ;  for  about  the  same  time,  they  decided 
that  profane  swearing  was  not  a  nuisance,  unless  it 
was  loud  and  long  continued." l 

"  What  had  we  better  do  ?  "  persisted  Mrs.  Law- 
yer. "  Either  he  must  leave,  or  we  must  bid  good- 
bye to  these  premises.'' 

"  Get  the  landlady  to  give  him  notice  to  quit ; 
then  if  he  won't  go  peaceably,  she  can  bundle  him 
out  neck  and  crop."  2 

"  She  will  promise  to  do  so,  and  that  will  be  the 
end  of  it,"  said  the  acidulous  lady. 

"  In  Massachusetts,  where  a  lodger  was  disturbed 
by  the  lodger  iu  the  room  below  singing  hymns  by 
no  means  of  the  Moody  &  Sankey  style,  and  the 
landlord  promised  to  get  the  musician  out,  but 
failed  to  do  so,  the  Supreme  Court  held  that  the 
aggrieved  boarder  could  not  insist  upon  a  diminu- 
tion of  his  weekly  bills  on  account  of  the  disagree- 
able singing.3  But,  my  dear,  will  you  come  and 
take  a  walk  with  me  ?  " 

Off  we  started  countrywards,  and walked. 

When  we  were  returning,  it  was  dark  and  late. 
"  The  night  air  was  soft  and  balmy ;  the  night  odors 
sweet  and  soul-entrancing ;  there  were  no  listeners 
save  the  grasshoppers  and  the  night-moths  with 
folded  wings  among  the  flower-beds  of  the  cottages, 
and  no  on-lookers  save  the  silent  stars  and  jeweled- 
eyed  frogs  upon  the  path  staring  at  us "  with  all 
their  might  and  main.  So  we  gossiped  until  we 

1  State  v.  Powell,  70  N.  C.  G7. 

2  Newton  v.  Harland,  1  M.  &  G.  644. 

3  De  Witt  v.  Pierson,  112  Mass  8. 


DUTIES   OF   A   BOARDIXG-HOUSE    KEEPER.  165 

entered  the  city  once  again,  and  then  the  odors 
changed ;  listeners  and  lookers-on  became  numer- 
ous ;  the  stars  were  eclipsed  by  flaming  gas ;  the 
frogs  gave  place  to  gaping  gamins. 

****** 

As  it  has  to  be  mentioned,  and  there  is  no  reason 
why  it  should  not  be  mentioned  just  here,  I  may 
state  (as  a  hint  to  those  who  keep  boarders)  that 
Judge  Coleridge  once  remarked  that  if  a  boarding- 
house  keeper  neglected  to  give  a  boarder  a  dry  bed 
or  wholesome  food,  and  in  consequence  thereof  the 
latter  became  sick,  it  could  not  be  doubted  but  that 
the  landlord  might  be  compelled  to  make  compen- 
sation in  damages  to  the  sufferer.  His  lordship 
also  went  on  to  say,  in  effect,  that  if  the  White 
Hart  Inn,  High-street,  Borough,  had  been  a  board- 
ing-house, and  Sam  Wellcr  had  given  the  wooden 
leg  of  number  six  to  thirteen,  and  the  pair  of  Hes- 
sians of  thirteen  to  number  six ;  or  the  two  pairs 
of  halves  of  the  commercial  to  the  snuggery  inside 
the  bar,  and  the  painted  tops  of  the  snuggery  to 
the  commercial,  so  that  any  of  those  worthies  had 
been  damnified,  then  the  bustling  old  landlady  of 
that  establishment  would  have  had  to  comfort  her 
guests  in  a  more  substantial  manner  than  she  did 
when  she  titillated  the  nose  of  the  spinster  aunt.1 

1  Dansey  v.  Richardson,  3  El.  &  B.  144. 


CHAPTER  X. 
MORE  ABOUT  BOARDING-HOUSE  KEEPERS. 

Again  it  was  night.  All  the  boarders  were  as- 
sembled around  the  tea-table ;  not  exactly,  however, 
as  Dr.  Talmage  would  wish,  for  he  said  that  you 
should  be  seated  wide  enough  apart  to  have  room 
to  take  out  your  handkerchief  if  you  want  to  cry 
at  any  pitiful  story,  or  to  spread  yourself  in  laugh- 
ter if  someone  propound  an  irresistible  conundrum. 

The  tea  was  none  of  that  good  old  stuff  that 
once  brought  $50  a  pound,  but  some  of  the  adul- 
terated mixture,  thirty  million  pounds  of  which 
Uncle  Sam,  Aunt  Columbia  and  their  Kttle  ones, 
pour  annually  into  their  saucers  and  empty  into 
their  mouths. 

"  Now,  then,  Mr.  Lawyer,"  said  my  friend  Mr. 
Jim  Crax,  as  the  bread  and  butter,  tea  and  toast 
were  fast  disappearing  off  the  table  on  to  the  chairs, 
"kindly  redeem  your  promise,  and  tell  us  the  differ- 
ence between  a  boarding-house  keeper  and  an  ho- 
tel-keeper; that  is,  the  difference  in  law — we  all 
know  the  practical  differences  only  too  well." 

After  a  preliminary  hem  and  haw,  I  began  as 
follows :  "  It  might  be  as  well  to  say,  in  the  first 
place,  that  a  boarding-house  is  not  in  common  par- 
lance, or  in  legal  meaning,  every  private  house 
where  one  or  more  boarders  are  occasionally  kept 
upon  special  considerations ;  but  is  a  quasi-public 

[166} 


MORE   ABOUT   BOARDING-HOTJSE    KEEPERS.  167 

house,  where  boarders  are  generally  and  habit- 
ually received  as  a  matter  of  business,  and  which 
is  held  out  to  the  public  and  known  as  a  place 
of  entertainment  of  that  kind.1  The  chief  dis- 
tinction between  a  boarding-house  and  an  inn,  and 
the  one  from  which  all  others  naturally  flow,  is 
that  the  keeper  of  a  boarding-house  can  choose  his 
own  guests,  admitting  some  and  rejecting  others,  as 
to  him  in  his  discretion  or  according  to  his  whims 
and  humors  may  seem  best;  while  an  innkeeper  is 
obliged  to  entertain  all  travelers  of  good  conduct, 
and  possessed  of  means  of  payment,  who  choose 
to  stop  at  his  house,  and  those  who  do  stay  he  must 
provide  with  all  they  have  occasion  for  while  on 
their  way." 2 

"  That  seems  rather  hard  on  the  innkeeper." 
"  No :  he  is  compensated  by  having  greater  priv- 
ileges than  his  humbler  brother ;  and  such  a  rule  is 
necessary  for  the  welfare  and  convenience  of  the 
traveling  public,  who  cannot  be  expected,  in  the 
hurry  of  journeyings,  to  stop  and  hunt  through  a 
town  for  a  night's  lodging,  making  a  special  bargain 
with  the  keeper  of  the  house.  A  lodging-house 
keeper  makes  a  special  contract  with  every  man 
that  comes  to  him,  whereas  an  innkeeper  is  bound, 
without  any  particular  agreement,  to  provide  lodg- 
ing  and  entertainment  for  all  who  come  to  him,  at 
a  reasonable  price.3  In  the  one  case  the  guest  is 
entertained  on  an  implied  contract  from  day  to  day ; 

1  Cady  v.  McDowell,  1  Lans.  (N.  Y.)  484. 

2  Pinkerton  v.  Woodward,  33  Cal.  557. 

3  Thompson  v.  Lacy,  3  Barn.  &  Adol.  283 


168  MORE  ABOUT   BOARDING-HOUSE    KEEPERS. 

in  the  other,  there  is  an  express  contract  for  a  cer- 
tain time  at  a  certain  rate." l 

"But  surely,"  said  Jim  Crax,  "oftentimes  a  defi- 
nite agreement  to  board  is  made  with  an  hotel- 
.  keeper." 

"  Of  course,  I  know  that,"  I  replied.  "  But,  then, 
if  he  does  so  on  the  arrival  of  his  guest  he  loses 
the  rights  and  privileges  as  well  as  the  liabilities  of 
his  order ;  although  an  arrangement  as  to  the  price 
only,  after  one  has  become  a  guest,  will  not  have 
that  effect.2  And  it  has  been  held  that  a  public 
hotel  at  a  watering  place  possessing  medicinal 
springs,  and  opened  only  during  the  summer  and 
fall  for  the  accommodation  of  visitors  in  search  of 
health  and  pleasure,  is,  in  fact,  only  a  boarding- 
house,  the  visitors  not  being  guests  for  a  day,  night, 
or  week,  but  lodgers  or  boarders  for  a  season."  3 

'  O 

"  What,"  said  the  landlady's  daughter,  who  was 
angling  for  the  young  law  student  and  so  tried 
to  season  her  generally  frivolous  conversation  with 
an  occasional  semi -sensible  remark  or  question, 
"  What  are  the  privileges  of  an  innkeeper  which  a 
boarding-house  keeper  does  not  enjoy?  The  right 
to  charge  $5  per  day  ?  " 

"  Their  right  of  lien.  You,  of  course,  know  what 
that  is  ?  "  I  replied. 

"Oh,  certainly,"  she  answered,  though  she  no 
more  knew  what  it  meant  than  I  do  the  hiero- 
glyphics on  Cleopatra's  Needle. 

1  Willard  v.  Reinhardt,  2  E.  D.  Smith,  148. 

2  "Wharton  on  Innkeepers,  123. 

8Benner  v.  Welburn,  7  Ga.  296,  307;  Southwood  v.  Myers, 
3  Bush,  681. 


MORE  ABOUT   BOARDING-HOUSE    KEEPERS.  169 

"  I  don't,"  said  a  lady  with  greater  honesty. 
"But  pray,  don't  attempt  to  define  it.  I  never  try 
to  find  out  the  meaning  of  a  word  since  I  once 
looked  in  Johnson's  dictionary  and  found  that  net- 
work was  'anything  reticulated  or  decussated  with 
interstices  between  the  intersections.'  " 

"I  thought  that  the  proprietor  of  a  boarding- 
house  also  had  the  right  of  detaining  the  goods  of 
their  lodgers  for  their  charges,"  remarked  the  seed- 
iest of  the  company  who  looked  as  if  he  had  had 
practical  experience  in  such  matters. 

"Not  generally;  although  in  some  States  the 
legislatures  have  conferred  the  right  upon  them  to 
the  same  extent  as  an  innkeeper  has  at  common 
law.  This  they  have,  for  instance,  in  New  York, 
New  Hampshire,  and  "Wisconsin ; l  and  in  Connec- 
ticut they  have  not  only  the  right  to  retain  the 
property  until  the  debt  is  paid,  but  in  case  of  non- 
payment they  can  sell  it  to  recoup  themselves  after 
a  certain  time. "2 

"  Suppose,"  said  the  student,  "  as  is  the  case  here, 
one  who  keeps  boarders  occasionally  entertains 
travelers  for  a  night  or  so — would  she  be  considered 
an  hotel-keeper  in  respect  to  those  stray  sheep  ?  " 

"  No,"  I  replied. 

"How  would  it  be  if  a  man  agreed  to  go  to  a 
boarding-house  and  then  backed  out  and  went  else- 
where?" asked  my  vis-a-vis  at  the  table. 

1  Stewart  v.  McCready,  24  How.  Pr.  62;  Jones  v.  Merrill,  42 
Barb.  G23;  Cross  v.  Wilkins,  43  N.  H.  332;  Nichols  v.  Holli- 
day,  29  Wis.  406. 

2  Brooks  v.  Harrison,  41  Conn.  184, 

15. 


170  MORE   ABOUT   BOARDING-HOUSE    KEEPERS. 

"Well,  where  a  man  of  the  name  of  Stewart 
agreed  by  word  of  mouth  with  one  who  took  board- 
ers to  pay  £100  a  year  for  the  board  and  lodging 
of  himself  and  servant  and  the  keep  of  his  horse, 
and  then  failed  to  take  up  his  quarters  at  the  house, 
the  court  considered  that  the  bargain  was  not  a 
contract  concerning  land  within  the  Statute  of 
Frauds  and  so  did  not  require  to  be  in  writing, 
and  that  Stewart  was  liable  to  pay  for  the  breach 
of  his  agreement."! 

"  What  is  that  in  front  of  you,  sir  ?  "  was  queried 
of  me. 

"  Pork  chops,  apparently,"  I  replied.  "  Will  you 
take  one  ?  " 

"  No,  thanks  ;  I  am  a  Jew  as  far  as  pork  is  con- 
cerned. In  fact,  although  not  so  bad  as  Marshal 
d' Albert,  who  was  always  taken  ill  whenever  he 
saw  a  roast  sucking-pig,  I  am  like  the  celebrated 
Guianerius — pork  always  gives  me  a  violent  palpi- 
tation of  the  heart." 

"  'Tis  curious  what  antipathies  some  people  have 
to  particular  kinds  of  food.  I  have  read  of  a  man 
who  was  always  seized  with  a  fit  when  he  tried  to 
swallow  a  piece  of  meat,"  said  a  Mr.  Knowall. 

"Nature  evidently  intended  him  for  a  vegeta- 
rian." 

"  I  have  heard  of  another  who  was  made  ill  if  he 
ever  ate  any  mutton,"  continued  the  gentleman ; 
"and  of  a  man  who  always  had  an  attack  of  the  gout 
a  few  hours  after  eating  fish.  In  fact,  the  celebrated 
Erasmus  could  not  smell  fish  without  being  thrown 

i  Wright  v.  Stewart,  29  Law  J.  Q.  B.  161. 


MOKE  ABOUT  BOAKDESTG-HOTJSE   KEEPERS.  171 

into  a  fever ;  Count  d'Armstadt  never  failed  to  go 
off  in  a  faint  if  he  knowingly  or  unknowingly  par- 
took of  any  dish  containing  the  slightest  modicum 
of  olive  oil ;  the  learned  Scaliger  would  shudder  in 
every  limb  on  beholding  water-cresses ;  and  Vla- 
disiaus,  of  Poland,  would  fly  at  the  sight  of  ap- 
ples." 

"  I  read  once  of  a  lady  who,  if  she  ventured  to 
taste  lobster  salad  at  a  dancing  party,  would,  before 
she  could  return  to  the  ball-room,  be  covered  with 
ugly  blotches  and  her  peace  of  mind  destroyed  for 
that  evening,"  I  remarked. 

"The  whole  question  of  food  is  an  interesting 
one,"  said  Mr.  Knowall. 

"Do  you  mean  with  regard  to  the  sumptuary 
laws  of  other  days  ?  "  queried  the  law  student. 

"Yes.  You  remember  that  in  the  days  of  the 
Plantagenets  the  Houses  of  Parliament  solemnly 
resolved  that  no  man,  of  what  state  or  condition 
soever  he  might  be,  should  have  at  dinner  or  sup- 
per, or  any  other  time,  more  than  two  courses,  and 
each  of  two  sorts  of  victual  at  the  utmost,  be  it  of 
flesh  or  fish,  with  the  common  sorts  of  potage, 
without  sauce  or  any  sort  of  victuals.  And  the 
eating  of  flesh  of  any  kind  during  Lent  and  on 
Fridays  and  Saturdays,  was  punished  by  a  fine  of 
ten  shillings,  or  imprisonment  for  ten  days ; 1  and 
in  the  days  of  Queen  Bess  the  fine  was  increased  to 
£3  and  the  term  of  imprisonment  to  three  months ; 
but  if  any  one  had  three  dishes  of  sea-fish  on  his 
table  he  might  have  one  of  flesh  also."  2 

1 2  and  3  Edw.  VI,  chap.  19.        2  5  Eliz.  chap.  5,  sec.  15. 


172  MORE   ABOUT   BOARDING-HOUSE    KEEPERS. 

"  Did  Elizabeth  do  this  from  any  religious  mo- 
tive ?  "  asked  a  young  divine. 

"  Oh,  dear,  no.  The  statute  expressly  says  that 
the  eating  of  fish  is  not  necessary  for  the  saving  of 
the  soul  of  man.  In  the  days  of  bluff  old  King 
Hal,  Archbishop  Cranmer  commanded  that  no  cler- 
gyman should  have  more  than  three  blackbirds  in  a 
pie  unless  he  was  a  bishop  and  then  he  might  have 
four,  but  he  allowed  himself  and  his  brother  of 
York  to  have  six." 

"  When  then,  pray,  did  the  fashion  of  having 
'  four-and-twenty  blackbirds  baked  in  a  pie '  come 
into  vogue?"  asked  my  wife,  who  had  a  good 
memory  for  infantile  rhymes. 


CHAPTER  XI. 
CHARMS  OF  FURNISHED  APARTMENTS. 

"De  gustibus  non  est  disputandum"  was  origi- 
nally observed  by  a  man  of  sense,  however  many 
blockheads  may  since  have  repeated  it ;  and  as  my 
tastes  in  the  matter  of  comestibles  did  not  harmo- 
nize with  those  of  the  several  respectable  boarding- 
house  keepers  beneath  whose  roofs  we  successively 
took  shelter,  it  was  settled  in  a  committee  of  the 
whole  family  that  Mrs.  Lawyer  and  myself  should 
take  furnished  apartments  in  a  genteel  street,  or  a 
furnished  house — that  Mrs.  L.  should  be  appointed 
Commissary-General,  with  one  Bridget  or  Biddy 
O'Callaghan  as  Deputy-Acting-Assistant  Commis- 
sary-General under  her,  while  I  should  continue  to 
hold  the  responsible  post  of  Paymaster-General  to 
the  entire  force. 

In  due  time,  after  a  considerable  reduction  in  our 
stock  of  the  virtue  of  patience  and  of  the  thickness 
of  the  soles  of  our  boots,  a  suitable  suite  of  rooms, 
furnished  in  a  style  agreeable  to  our  taste,  in  a  lo- 
cality not  objectionable  and  at  a  rate  proportionate 
to  the  depth  or  rather  shallowness  of  my  pocket,  was 
discovered  and  all  necessary  arrangements  made 
with  the  landlord. 

To  avoid  all  possibility  of  future  disputations 
with  the  owner,  (and  especially  as  a  contract  to  let 
lodgings  is  a  contract  concerning  an  interest  in  land 

[173] 


174  CHARMS   OF  FURNISHED   APARTMENTS. 

within  the  meaning  of  that  celebrated  troublesome 
statute  passed  in  the  twenty-ninth  year  of  his  ras- 
cally majesty,  Charles  II,  and  entitled  "  an  act  for 
the  prevention  of  frauds  and  perjuries,"  and  so  must 
be  in  writing,1)  I  determined  to  follow  the  good  ad- 
vice of  Mr.  Woodfall,  and  have  our  agreement  re- 
duced to  black  and  white.  My  instructions  to  my 
clerk  in  preparing  the  document  were,  to  specify 
the  amount  of  rent,  the  time  of  entry,  the  length  of 
notice  to  quit  required  and  such  other  particulars 
as  the  nature  of  the  case  rendered  requisite,  and  to 
have  a  list  of  the  goods  and  chattels  in  the  apart- 
ments affixed. 

Alas,  I  found  the  truth  of  the  old  adage,  that  a 

lawyer  who  acts  for  himself  has  a  well,  not  a 

Solomon  —  for  his  client.  An  unexpected  event, 
however,  saved  me.  The  very  evening  before  we 
were  to  enter  into  our  new  abode  a  bailiff,  on  be- 
half of  the  real  owner,  for  my  acquaintance  had 
but  a  lease  of  the  place,  visited  the  house  and 
seized  a  part  of  the  furniture  for  rent  overdue ; 
luckily  none  of  my  personal  belongings  had  been 
taken  in — if  there  had  been  any  of  them  they,  too, 
would  have  been  liable  to  distress  for  the  rent.  I 
had  stupidly  neglected  to  inquire  whether  the  taxes 
or  the  rent  of  the  house  were  paid  up,  and  whether 
they  were  likely  to  be  kept  so.2  Of  course  I  knew 
that  if  I  had  at  that  particular  period  of  my  exist- 
ence chanced  to  have  been  living  in  New  England, 

1  Woodfall,  Landlord  and  Tenant.    But  see  Wright  v.  Stew- 
art, 6  Jur.  N.  S.  8G7. 

2  Woodfall,  Landlord  and  Tenant.    But  see  Wright  v.  Stew- 
art, 6  Jur.  N.  S.  867. 


CHARMS  OF  FURNISHED  APARTMENTS.  175 

or  in  New  York  State,  or  in  some  of  the  other 
States  of  the  Union,  I  could  not  have  been  troubled 
if  in  that  house,  as  the  power  of  distress  exists  in 
those  places  no  longer;1  but  we  were  in  a  State  in 
which  it  is  still  retained,  or  at  least  was  then. 

When  I  told  my  wife  of  the  narrow  escape  we 
had  had  she  asked  me  if  I  had  ever  made  inquiries 
as  to  whether  the  landlords  of  the  hotels  at  which 
we  stayed  were  in  arrear  for  rent. 

"No,"  I  replied ;  "the  rule  is  different  in  respect 
to  hotels." 

"Why?" 

"  For  the  benefit  of  trade ;  otherwise  business 
could  not  be  carried  on  at  all." 

"But  what  would  we  have  had  there  except  my 
cat  and  bird,  our  clothes,  and  your  books  ?  "  urged 
Mrs.  L. 

"  Nothing  more  would  have  been  wanted." 

"Could  they  have  taken  our  clothes?  I  thought 
all  such  things  were  exempt." 

"Generally  speaking,  they  are  from  seizure  for 
debt ;  but  not  from  distress  for  rent,  unless  they 
are  in  actual  use  at  the  time.  In  1796  Mr.  Baynes, 
who  had  furnished  lodgings  at  half  a  guinea  a  week, 
was  two  months  in  arrear,  and  a  bailiff  appeared 
upon  the  scene  and  took  his  wearing  apparel  and 
that  of  Mrs.  B.,  although  part  of  it  was  actually  in 
the  wash-tub  at  the  time  ;  and  Lord  Kenyon  said  it 
was  all  right.?  The  same  judge  decided  in  another 
case  that  a  landlord  could  legally  take  the  clothes 

1  Parsons  on  Contracts,  vol.  1,  p.  517. 

2  Baynes  v.  Smith,  1  Esp.  206. 


176  CHARMS   OF  FURNISHED  APARTMENTS. 

belonging  to  a  man's  wife  and  children,  while  they 
— the  '  clothes  screens,'  as  Carlyle  calls  them — not 
the  clothes — were  in  bed,  although  the  bipeds  in- 
tended to  put  them  on  in  the  morning,  and  had  been 
daily  in  the  habit  of  wearing  them,  on  the  ground 
that  they  were  not  in  actual  use.1  But  Kenyon,  my 
dear,  sometimes  said  absurd  things.  For  instance, 
once,  when  indignant  at  the  delay  of  an  attorney, 
he  exclaimed,  wrathfully,  '  This  is  the  last  hair  in 
the  tail  of  procrastination.' " 

"The  law  seems  very  hard.  Why,  that  poor 
woman  would  have  to  stay  in  bed.  But  talking  of 
tails,  could  they  have  taken  my  cat — my  beauti- 
ful pussy?"  said  Mrs.  Lawyer,  looking  over  where 

The  cat's  dark  silhouette  on  the  wall, 
A  couchant  tiger' s  seemed  to  fall. 

"  Well — ah — in  Coke  upon  Littleton  it  is  said, 
no;  but  the  reason  given  is  that  cats  are  things  in 
which  no  man  can  have  an  absolute  and  valuable 
property;  and  that  reason  might  not  be  applicable 
to  the  case  of  a  costly  Angora  like  yours,  and  you 
know,  cessante  ratione  cessat  et  ipsa  lex;  but  your 
bird  might  have  been  taken."  2 

"  It  seems  strange  that  the  landlord  can  take  the 
property  of  other  people  to  pay  his  tenant's  debts." 

"  It  does  ;  and  in  many  parts  of  this  country  only 
the  goods  of  the  debtor  can  be  taken,3  and  the 
judges  are  generally  inclined  to  deliver  the  lodger 

iBisset  v.  Caldwell,  1  Esp.  206,  n. 

2  Woodfall,  Landlord  and  Tenant,  384. 

3  Parsons  on  Contracts,  vol.  1,  p.  518. 


CHARMS   OF  FURNISHED  APARTMENTS.  177 

from  the  claws  of  the  landlord ;  and  so  it  has  been 
held  that  while  the  goods  of  an  assignee  of  the 
tenant  are  liable,  those  of  a  mere  under-tenant  are 
not ;  i  and  in  England,  of  late  years,  an  act  has  been 
passed  for  the  protection  of  the  lodger's  goods  from 
the  claims  of  the  landlord  for  rent  due  him  by  his 
immediate  tenant."  2 

"  But  if  our  things  had  been  taken  to  pay  the 
rent,  could  we  not  have  made  the  other  boarders 
contribute  their  share  ?  " 

"  No,  I  am  afraid  not,"  3  I  answered. 

***** 

Our  intended  rooms  being  now  somewhat  de- 
nuded of  their  necessary  furnishings  we  arranged 
with  our  landlord-about-to-be  to  send  in  all  neces- 
sary articles  within  a  reasonable  time.  Unfortu- 
nately, however,  this  new  arrangement  was  not  em- 
bodied in  our  written  agreement ;  so  I  found  out — 
when  too  late — that  our  landlord  (a  man  of  the  eel 
kind)  was  not  bound  to  put  in  the  furniture.  If  it 
had  been  in  writing,  it  would  then  have  formed  an 
inseparable  part  of  the  contract,  and  the  man 
could  not  have  obtained  his  rent  until  he  had  done 
his  duty.4 

We  had  scarcely  got  settled  in  our  new  quarters 
before  we  discovered  that  our  rose  possessed  a 
thorn  or  two.  The  morning  after  our  arrival,  we 

i  Archer  r.  Wetherell,  4  Hill  (X.  Y.)  112. 

234  and  33  Viet.  chap.  79 ;  Phillips  v.  Henson,  !L.  R.  3  C 
P.  D.  26. 

8  Hunter  v.  Hunt,  1  Com.  B.  300. 

4Mechelen  v.  Wallace,  7  Ad.  &  E.  49  ;  Vaughan  v.  Han- 
cock, 3  Com.  B.  766. 


178  CHARMS  OF  FURNISHED   APARTMENTS. 

were  honored  with  the  visit  of  a  choleric  gent, 
who  informed  us  that  he  occupied  the  rooms  on 
the  flat  below  and  that  our  water  pipes  had  leaked 
through  and  damaged  irreparably  some  of  his 
property.  I  am  thankful,  however,  to  say  that  I 
was  able  to  point  out  to  him  that  the  defects  in  the 
pipe  could  not  have  been  detected  without  exami- 
nation ;  that  as  we  did  not  know  of  them,  and  had 
not  been  guilty  of  any  negligence,  we  were  not 
liable  for  the  damage  which  he  had  unfortunately 
sustained,  there  being  no  obligation  upon  us  to 
keep — at  our  peril — the  water  in  the  pipe.1 

We  next  had  trouble  about  a  stovepipe  which 
had  to  pass  through  another  person's  room.  When 
we  began  to  put  it  up  our  neighbor  threatened  to 
take  it  down  and  stop  up  the  hole ;  but  knowing 
that  as  there  had  been  a  pipe  through  his  room  be- 
fore the  surly  fellow  moved  in  he  only  had  the 
room  subject  to  the  easement  of  the  stovepipe  and 
hole,2  I  remained  firm  and  steadfast,  and  finally  won 
a  way  for  the  obnoxious,  black,  cylindrical  smoke- 
conductor,  and  .we  hoped  to  hear  the  kettle  sing 
merrily,  and  the  pots  bubble,  and  spirt,  and  boil  in 
peace,  if  not  in  quietude. 

But  our  triumph  was  not  for  long.  Barely  was 
the  stove  in  full  blast  when  the  boiler  attached  ex- 
ploded with  a  terrific  uproar.  Considerable  dam- 
age was  done;  my  wife  was  clamorous  that  I  should 
at  once  interview  the  landlord,  especially  as  we 
thought  that  the  accident  could  not  have  happened 

iRoss  v.  Fedden,  7  Q.  B.  661. 

2  Culverwell  v.  Lockington,  24  C.  P.  (Ont.  611. 


CHARMS   OP  FURNISHED  APARTMENTS.  179 

had  there  been  a  safety-valve  to  the  boiler ;  but  I 
said  that  it  would  be  useless  to  talk  about  it  unless 
we  could  prove  that  he  knew  of  the  defect,  or  had 
reason  to  suspect  it,  or  that  damage  was  to  be  ap- 
prehended from  the  use  of  the  boiler  for  the  pur- 
pose for  which  it  was  intended ;  *  although  on  one 
occasion  the  courts  held  a  landlord  liable  for  inju- 
ries arising  from  the  explosion  of  gas,  caused  by 
the  pipes  in  the  tenant's  room  not  having  been 
properly  secured.2 

In  the  afternoon  it  began  to  rain  in  the  style 
commonly  called  "  cats  and  dogs/'  or  "  pitchforks," 
and  soon  we  heard  pit — pit — pit,  patter — patter — 
patter,  spit — spit — spit,  spatter — spatter — spatter, 
sounding  nearer  than  the  dripping  outside  would 
seem  to  warrant,  and  on  investigation  we  found 
that  the  rain  was  coming  through  the  roof  and 
dropping  down  in  ugly  splashes  upon  one  of  our 
most  handsome  and  costly  volumes. 

"  Can  we  make  the  landlord  pay  for  the  damage 
done  by  his  old  leaky  roof?"  asked  my  wife,  as 
with  her  best  cambric  handkerchief  she  tried  to 
swab  up  the  wet. 

"  I  fear  me  not.  I  remember  Baron  Martin  say- 
ing that  one  who  takes  a  floor  in  a  house  must  be 
held  to  take  the  premises  as  they  are,  and  cannot 
complain  that  the  house  was  not  constructed  dif- 
ferently. This  storm  may  have  blown  off  some 
shingles,  and  then,  even  if  our  landlord  is  bound  to 
use  reasonable  care  in  keeping  the  roof  secure,  he 

1  Jaffe  v.  Harteau,  56  N".  Y.  398. 
2Kimmell  v.  Burfiend,  2  Daly  (N.  Y.),  155. 


180  CHARMS   OF  FURNISHED   APARTMENTS. 

cannot  be  held  responsible  for  what  no  reasonable 
care  and  vigilance  could  have  provided  against. 
He  cannot  certainly  be  considered  guilty  of  negli- 
gence if  he  has  caused  the  roof  to  be  examined 
periodically,  and  if  it  was  all  secure  the  last  time  it 
was  looked  at.1  Still,  in  New  York  State  it  was 
decided  that  where  a  landlord,  who  himself  occu- 
pied an  upper  flat,  allowed  liquids  to  leak  through 
into  his  tenants'  rooms,  he  was  liable."  2 

"  I  should  think,  indeed,  that  a  man  should  keep 
his  house  in  repair,  so  that  his  tenants'  goods  are 
not  ruined,"  indignantly  said  Mrs.  Lawyer. 

"  You  may  say  that,  but  the  law  says  quite  the 
reverse.  It  is  perfectly  clear  that  a  landlord  is  not 
bound  to  do  any  repairs,  however  necessary  they 
may  be,  except  such  as  he  personally  agrees  to  do. 
The  law  will  not  imply  any  contract  of  that  sort  on 
his  part.  That  was  decided  in  a  case  where  large 
gaps  opened  in  the  main  walls,  and  it  took  several 
hours  of  hard  pumping  daily  to  keep  the  water  out 
of  the  basement.3 

"In  New  Hampshire,  I  admit,  it  has  been  held 
that  where  a  landlord  negligently  constructs  his 
building,  <  r  negligently  allows  it  to  continue  out  of 
repair,  he  is  liable  for  injuries  to  his  tenants  ; 4  and 
in  New  York  the  rule  is  said  to  be  that  when  build- 
ings are  in  good  repair  when  leased  and  afterward 

1  Carstairs  v.  Taylor,  L.  R.  G  Ex.  223. 

2  Stapenlmrst  v.  Am.  Man.  Co.  15  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  355;  Simon- 
ton  v.  Loring,  08  Me.  lf>4. 

3  Arden  t>.  Pullen,  10  Mees.  &  \V.  321;  Keates  v.  Cadogan, 
10  C.  B.  r>91;  Gottv.  Gandy,2  El.  &  B.  845;  Wiltz  v.  Matthews, 
52  N.  Y.  512;  Taffe  v.  Harteau,  56  N.  Y.  398. 

4  Scott  v.  Simons,  54  N.  H.  426. 


CHARMS  OP  FX?KN7SHED   APARTMENTS.  181 

become  ruinous  and  dangerous,  the  owner  is  not 
responsible  unless  he  has  expressly  agreed  to  re- 
pair." 1 

"  Surely,  then,  one  has  not  to  pay  rent  when  a 
house  is  in  such  a  wretched  state  ?  I  suppose  we 
are  not  bound  to  stay  here." 

"Yes,  to  both  your  queries.  The  only  cases  in 
which  a  tenant  has  been  permitted  to  withdraw 
from  his  tenancy  and  refuse  payment  of  rent  are 
where  there  has  been  some  error  or  fraudulent  mis- 
description  of  the  premises,  or  where  they  have 
been  found  to  be  uninhabitable  in  consequence  of 
the  wrongful  act  or  default  of  the  landlord  him- 
self ; 2  and  it  is  not  perfectly  clear  that  he  can  do 
so  even  then.3  But  I  must  go  out  for  the  present, 
my  dear.  Fare  thee  well." 

In  the  hall  down  stairs  I  met  Mr.  Screwhard,  our 
landlord,  a  gentleman  who,  from  his  personal  ap- 
pearance, would  have  accumulated  a  large  fortune 
as  an  undertaker ;  for  from  his  countenance  you 
could  no  more  have  coaxed  a  smile  than  you  could 
have  out  of  a  poker.  As  I  was  bidding  him  a  hur- 
ried "  Good  morning,"  he  placed  his  body,  so  long, 
so  lean,  and  so  straight  that  you  might  have  taken 
it  for  a  telegraph  pole  in  consumption,  before  me, 
and  said,  in  tones  which  would  have  well  become 
the  ghost  in  Hamlet  — 

"  You  must  be  in  by  nine  o'clock,  sir ;  we  lock 
the  front  door  then." 

i  Clancy  v.  Byrne,  5fi  N.  Y.  129. 
2Izoii  v.  Gorton,  5  Bing.  N.  C.  501 ;  7  Scott,  537. 
3  Surplice  v.  Earns  worth,  7  M.  &  G.  570. 
13. 


182  CHARMS  OF   FURNISHED   APARTMENTS. 

"  Gammon  !  "  said  I ;  "  you  will  have  to  unlock 
it,  then,  to  let  me  in ;  for  when  you  rented  me  the 
rooms  you  impliedly  granted  all  that  was  necessary 
for  their  free  use  and  full  enjoyment,  such  as  the  use 
of  the  hall  and  stairs  whenever  required,  and  not 
only  when  you  choose." l 

"  I  will  yield  to  your  wishes  for  this  night  only," 
said  Screwhard,  in  a  voice  as  solemn  as  if  he  were 
about  to  be  cremated ;  "  but  mind,  rap  with  your 
'knuckles  on  the  door  ;  in  time  your  wife  will  hear 
and  can  let  you  in,  for  I  must  be  allowed  to  have 
unbroken  slumbers ;  my  health  demands  that  most 
imperatively." 

"  Stuff  and  nonsense  !  "  I  replied  ;  "  I  have  a 
right  to  use  the  bell  and  the  knocker,  as  nothing 
was  said  to  the  contrary  before ; 2  and  I  shall  use 
them." 

And  impatient  with  the  old  fellow  I  passed  on, 
saying  to  myself :  "  The  man  must  be  a  fool.  An 
action  will  lie  against  him  if  he  attempts  to  inter- 
fere with  our  use  of  the  necessary  adjuncts  of  his 
furnished  apartments.  To  be  sure  if  we  were  bad 
tenants,  he  might,  in  mitigation  of  damages,  show 
that  he  acted  so  to  make  us  leave.3  But  we  have 
not  been  long  enough  for  that." 

Apollo  stayed  not  his  fiery  steeds  in  their  down- 
ward career  towards  the  happy  isles  of  the  west 
that  day,  and  Phoebus'  sickly-looking  sister  held 
sway  in  high  heaven  when  I  again  reached  the  door 

iMaclennan  v.  Royal  Ins.  Co.  39  Q.  B.  (Ont.)  515. 
2  Underwood  v.  Burrows,  7  Car.  &  P.  26. 
s  Idem. 


CHAEMS   OF  FUKNISHED   APARTMENTS.  183 

of  my  new  domicile.  "With  me  was  Tom  Jones, 
who  was  anxious  to  see  the  rooms.  Mrs.  Lawyer 
received  us  in  the  parlor  with  a  face  full  of  disgust, 
and  after  the  interchange  of  a  word  or  two  with 
Tom,  calling  me  aside,  made  the  horrid  announce- 
ment that  our  bedrooms  were  fully  occupied  by  ani- 
mals of  a  small  size,  broad  for  their  length,  darkish 
in  color,  scented,  anthropophagous,  and  designated 
by  the  same  letters  as  very  dark  drawing  pencils. 

I  disclosed  the  fact  to  T.  J.,  who,  being  somewhat 
of  a  naturalist,  might,  I  thought,  be  able  to  prescribe 
some  cure  for  this  new  found  evil.  He  at  once  ex- 
claimed : 

"  I  tell  you  what,  old  fellow,  some  scientific  folks 
say  that  these  creatures  always  retire  from  public 
life  to  their  own  quarters  about  midnight.  Test  the 
point.  You  tumble  into  bed  at  once,  and  I  will  en- 
deavor to  entertain  Mrs.  Lawyer  imtil  twelve,  and 
will  call  in  the  morning  to  hear  the  result  of  the 
experiment." 

"  You're  very  kind,  I  am  sure.  But  I  am  always 
willing  to  share  things  equally  with  my  wife ;  be- 
sides, when  two  are  in  bed  the  creepers  lose  time 
in  deciding  which  to  bite,  so  one  can  get  occasional 
naps.  To-morrow  we  will  quit,"  I  replied. 

"  But  can  you  give  up  your  lodgings  in  that  sum- 
mary manner  ?  " 

"Long  since  it  was  decided  that  where  a  man 
rents  ready  furnished  houses  or  lodgings  and  they 
are  infested  by  bugs,  the  tenant  may  leave  without 
paying  rent.  Baron  Parke,  in  giving  judgment, 
said  that  the  authorities  appeared  fully  to  warrant 


184  CHARMS  OP   FURNISHED   APARTMENTS. 

the  position  that  if  the  demised  premises  are  encum- 
bered with  a  nuisance  of  so  serious  a  nature  that  no 
person  can  reasonably  be  expected  to  live  in  them, 
the  tenant  is  at  liberty  to  throw  them  up.  And  he 
said  that  this  was  so  because  of  the  implied  condi- 
tion that  the  landlord  undertakes  to  rent  the  placs 
in  an  habitable  state.  Lord  Abinger,  in  the  same 
case,  went  even  further,  and  gave  it  as  his  opinion 
that  no  authorities  were  wanted  to  establish  the 
point,  and  that  the  case  was  one  which  common 
sense  alone  enabled  them  to  decide.  A  man,  he  re- 
marked, who  lets  a  ready  furnished  house,  surely 
does  so  under  an  implied  condition,  or  obligation, 
that  the  house  is  in  a  fit  state  to  be  inhabited.  His 
lordship  had  no  doubt  whatever  on  the  subject,  and 
thought  that  tenants  under  such  circumstances  were 
fully  justified  in  leaving."  1 

"  But  have  not  other  equally  learned  judges  had 
very  grave  doubts  upon  the  subject?"  queried 
Jones. 

"  Well,  I  must  confess  that  later  cases  have 
somewhat  shaken  the  authority  of  the  one  I  have 
been  referring  to,  and  it  has  been  held  that  there  is 
no  implied  warranty  in  a  lease  of  a  house,  or  of 
land,  that  it  is  or  shall  be  reasonably  fit  for  habi- 
tation, occupation,  or  cultivation,  and  that  there  is 
no  contract,  still  less  any  condition,  implied  by  law 
on  the  demise  of  real  property  only  that  it  is  fit 
for  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  let."  2 

1  Smith  v.  Man-able,  11  Mees.  &  W.  5;  Add.  on  Con.  375-6. 

2  Hart  v.  Windsor,  11  Mees.  &  W.  68  ;  Sutton  v.  Temple, 
Ibid.  57  ;  Searle  v.  Laverick,  Law  B.  9  Q.  B.  131 ;  McGlasham 
v.  Tallmadge,  37  Barb.  313. 


CHARMS  OF  FURNISHED  APARTMENTS.  185 

"Does  not  that  put  an  extinguisher  oji  the  au- 
thority you  cited  ?  "  said  Jones. 

"No;  in  some  of  these  latter  decisions  the  case 
of  a  ready  furnished  house  is  expressly  distinguished 
upon  the  ground  that  the  letting  of  such  a  house  is 
a  contract  of  n.  mixed  nature,  being  in  fact  a  bar- 
gain for  a  house  and  furniture,  which,  of  necessity, 
must  be  such  as  are  fit  for  the  purpose  for  which 
they  are  to  be  used.  Abiuger  was  particularly 
strong  on  the  point.  He  said  that  '  if  a  party  con- 
tract for  the  lease  of  a  house  ready  furnished,  it  is 
to  be  furnished  in  a  proper  manner,  and  so  as  to  be 
fit  for  immediate  occupation.  Suppose,'  said  he, 
'  it  turn  out  that  there  is  not  a  bed  in  the  house ; 
surely  the  party  is  not  bound  to  occupy  it  or  con- 
tinue in  it.  So,  also,  in  the  case  of  a  house  infect- 
ed with  vermin  ;  if  bugs  be  found  in  the  bed,  even 
after  entering  into  possession,  the  lodger  or  occu- 
pier is  not  bound  to  stay  in  the  house.  Suppose 
again,'  he  continued,  'the  tenant  discover  that 
there  are  not  sufficient  chairs  in  the  house,  or  that 
they  are  not  of  a  sort  fit  for  use:  he  may  give 
up  possession.'1  And  so  late  as  April  of  the  year 
of  grace  1877,  Lord  C.  B.  Kelly  said  that  he  was 
of  the  opinion,  both  on  authority  and  on  general 
principles  of  law,  that  there  is  an  implied  condition 
that  a  furnished  house  shall  be  in  a  good  and  ten* 
antable  state  and  reasonably  fit  for  human  occupa- 
tion from  the  very  day  on  which  the  tenancy  is 
dated  to  begin,  and  that  where  such  a  house  is  in 
such  a  condition  that  there  is  either  great  discom- 

1  Hart  v.  Windsor,  supra. 


186  CHARMS   OP  FUBinSHED   APARTMENTS. 

fort  or  danger  to  health  in  entering  and  dwelling 
in  it,  then  the  intending  tenant  is  entitled  to  repu- 
diate the  contract  altogether."  1 

"Well,  that  is  strong,  I  am  sure." 

"  Abinger  held  that  the  letting  of  the  goods  and 
chattels,  as  well  as  the  house,  implies  that  the  party 
who  lets  it  so  furnished  is  under  an  obligation  to 
Mipply  the  other  contracting  party  with  whatever 
goods  and  chattels  may  bo  fit  for  the  use  and  occu- 
pation of  such  a  house  according  to  its  particular 
description  and  suitable  in  every  respect.  And 
Judge  Shaw,  of  Massachusetts,  says  that  in  the 
case  of  furnished  rooms  in  a  lodging  house,  let  for 
a  particular  season,  a  warranty  may  be  implied 
that  they  are  suitably  fitted  for  such  use."  2 

"  I  should  think,"  said  Jones,  "  that  a  would  be 
tenant  ought  to  go  and  inspect  the  premises  for 
himself." 

"  If  he  has  an  opportunity  of  doing  so  it  might, 
perhaps,  make  a  difference,  but  if  he  takes  it  upon 
the  faith  of  its  being  properly  furnished,  common 
sense  and  common  justice  concur  in  the  conclusion 
that  the  owner  is  bound  to  let  it  in  an  habitable 
state.  So  saith  the  Lord  Chief  Baron."3 

"  I  believe  that  it  has  been  held  in  this  country 
that  the  existence  of  a  noxious  smell  in  the  house 
did  not  authorize  the  tenant's  leaving."  * 

"  Indeed.     My  lady,  the  Dowager  Countess  of 

1  Wilson  v.  Finch  Hatton,  L.  R.  2  Ex.  D.  343. 

2  Dutton  v.  Gerrish,  63  Mass.  94. 

3  Button  v.  Temple,  supra. 

4  Westlake  v.  De  Graw,  25  Wend.  669. 


CHAKMS  OP  FUBNISHED  APARTMENTS.  187 

"Winchelsea,  agreed  to  rent  a  furnished  house  in 
Wilton  Crescent,  London,  for  three  months  of 
the  season  of  1875  for  the  sum  of  450  guineas. 
When  her  ladyship  arrived  with  her  servants  and 
personal  luggage,  she  perceived  an  unpleasant  smell 
in  the  house,  and  declining  to  occupy  it,  had  her 
horses  taken  out  of  the  stable.  On  investigation, 
it  was  found  that  the  drainage  was  in  a  very  bad 
state,  rendering  the  house  quite  unfit  for  occupa- 
tion. In  three  weeks'  time,  however,  matters  were 
put  right,  but  her  ladyship  refused  to  go  back  or 
to  pay  rent.  A  suit  was  brought,  in  which  the 
whole  court  unanimously  held  that  the  state  of  the 
drains  entitled  the  Countess  to  rescind  the  bargain 
and  to  refuse  to  pay  rent.1  Abinger  thought  that 
if  a  tenant,  on  entering  his  lodgings,  found  out  that 
the  previous  occupier  had  left  because  some  one 
had  recently  died  in  them  of  the  plague  or  scarlet 
fever,  he  would  not  be  compelled  to  remain.2  And 
in  Massachusetts  it  was  decided  that  a  tenant  who 
caught  small-pox  through  no  fault  of  his  own,  but 
because  the  owner  wilfully  neglected  to  inform 
him  that  the  house  was  infected  with  that  disease, 
might  recover  damages  from  the  landlord."  3 

Just  then  a  slight  movement  on  the  part  of  Jones 
made  the  chair  on  which  he  was  perched  creak, 
crack,  stretch  out  its  legs,  and  let  him  down.  As 
he  was  hastily  apologizing  for  the  damage,  I  re- 
marked : 

1  "Wilson  v.  Finch  Hatton,  L.  B.  2  Ex.  D.  336. 

2  Smith  v.  Marrable,  11  Mees.  &  W.  5. 

3  Minor  r.  Sharon,  112  Mass.  477. 


188  CHARMS   OF  FURNISHED    APARTMENTS. 

"Don't  trouble  yourself,  the  occupier  of  fur- 
nished apartments  is  not  responsible  for  deteriora- 
tion by  ordinary  wear  or  tear  in  the  reasonable  use 
of  the  goods  of  the  landlord."  l 

"  I'll  go  now,  at  all  events,  as  I  ain  up,"  said  our 
friend,  as  he  seized  his  hat  and  made  his  adieux. 

Quaere,  was  that  a  white  handkerchief  protrud- 
ing slightly  from  his  pistol  pocket?  Indispensables 
are  tighter  now-a-days  than  they  used  to  be. 

1  Add.  on  Contracts,  377. 


CHAPTER    XII. 

NOTICE    TO    QUIT,  AND    TURNING    OUT. 

Doubtless  many  an  anxious  housekeeper  is  hur- 
rying rapidly  through  the  pages  of  this  book  to 
discover  whether  or  no  Tom  Jones'  piece  of  entom- 
ological information  was  correct ;  but  I  shall  not  en- 
lighten them  on  the  point,  for  this  is  a  work  on  le- 
gal subjects,  and  cannot  be  taken  up  with  recount- 
ing investigations  concerning  the  habits  of  such 
small  things  as  insects.  Saith  not  the  ancient 
maxim:  "  De  minimis  non  curat  lex"? 

We  had,  however,  other  things  to  think  about 
ere  morning's  light  again  illuminated  the  eastern 
sky.  Scarcely  had  we  settled  ourselves  for  the 
night  when  my  wife  started  up,  exclaiming : 

"  Hear  the  loud  alarum  bells !  What  a  tale  of  ter- 
ror their  turbulency  tells !  In  the  startled  ear  of 
night  how  they  scream  out  their  affright  in  a  clam- 
orous appealing  to  the  mercy  of  the  firo — in  a  mad 
expostulation  with  the  deaf  and  frantic  fire !  What 
a  tale  their  terror  tells  of  despair !  How  they  clang, 
and  clash,  and  roar !  " 

"Ha!  and  well  for  us  that  their  twanging  and 
their  clanging  have  aroused  us ;  for  see !  the  house- 
opposite  is  all  wrapped  in  flames,  and  the  wind  is 
driving  right  toward  us  !  " 

Ah !  then  throughout  our  house  there  was  hur- 
rying to  and  fro,  and  gathering  tears,  and  trem- 

£189] 


190  NOTICE   TO   QUIT,  AND   TURNING  OUT. 

blings  of  distress,  and  cheeks  all  pale,  which,  hut 
ten  minutes  past,  pressed  the  soft  pillows  with  their 
loveliness;  and  there  were  sudden  snatchings  of 
such  as  by  chance  l:;y  within  reach,  and  leaving 
things  which  ne'er  might  be  regained ;  and  there 
was  rushing  in  hot  haste — the  men,  the  chattering 
women,  and  the  pattering  child,  wept  pouring  for- 
ward with  impetuous  speed,  and  swiftly  showed  in 
the  back  yard  in  robes  de  nuit. 

I  jumped  into  my  pantaloons;  fortunately,  they 
were  not  like  those  of  Monseigneur  d'Artois,  nor 
was  I  as  particular  as  his  highness;  four  tall 
lackeys  had  to  hold  him  up  in  the  air  every  morn- 
ing, that  he  might  fall  into  his  breeches  without 
vestige  of  wrinkle,  and  from  them  the  same  four,  in 
the  same  way  but  with  more  effort,  had  to  deliver 
him  at  night.  We  found  shelter  in  the  hospitable 
mansion  of  old  Mrs.  Jones.  At  the  expense  of  our 
friends,  we  thatched  ourselves  anew  with  the 
"  dead  fleeces  of  sheep,  the  bark  of  vegetables,  the 
entrails  of  worms,  the  hides  of  oxen  or  seals,  the 
felt  of  furred  beasts,  and  walked  down  stairs  mov- 
ing rag  screens,  over-heaped  with  shreds  and  tat- 
ters raked  from  the  charnel-house  of  nature"  to 
partake  of  the  morning  meal. 

At  breakfast,  Mrs.  Lawyer  remarked,  in  anything 
but  lugubrious  tones  : 

"  Well,  Mr.  Jones,  we  have  got  rid  of  those 
rooms  without  much  trouble." 

Tom  shook  his  head  ;  so  my  wife  asked : 

"  Why  do  you  do  that  ?  " 

"  Because  I  am  not  quite  sure  that  you  are  yet 


NOTICE   TO  QUIT,  AND   TURNING   OUT.  191 

quit  of  my  friend,  Mr.  Screwhard,  your  landlord," 
was  the  reply. 

"  What  do  you  mean  ?  "  queried  my  wife. 

"Ask  your  respected  husband;  he  knows  more 
about  such  matters  than  I  do." 

In  reply  to  my  wife's  questioning  glance,  I  said : 
"  I  am  afraid  it  is  rather  too  soon  to  rejoice 
over  the  matter.  We  must  pay  rent  until  we  can 
get  rid  of  our  liability  by  a  regular  notice  to 
quit." 

"  But  we  can't  occupy  the  place." 

"  That  makes  no  difference." 1 

"Then  you  had  no  provision  in  your  lease  ex- 
empting you  in  case  of  fire,"  remarked  Jones. 

"  Unfortunately,  not." 

"  But  why  should  we  pay  when  we  cannot  use 
the  place?"  asked  my  wife,  growing  warm. 

"The  rule  is,  my  dear,  that  when  the  law  im- 
poses a  duty  upon  one  and  he  is  prevented  per- 
forming it  without  any  fault  on  his  part,  and  he 
has  no  one  to  whom  he  may  look  for  satisfaction, 
the  courts  will  excuse  the  non-performance ;  but 
when  a  man  voluntarily  takes  a  duty  or  charge 
upon  himself  he  must  perform  his  contract,  come 
what  may,  because  he  might  have  provided  against 
all  accidents  in  his  agreement." 

"  And,  you  stupid !  you  did  not  have  the  lease 
properly  drawn ! " 

"Exactly  so,  my  female  Solomon,"  I  replied,  in- 
dignantly. 

1  Izon  v.  Gorton,  5  Bing.  N.  C.  501 ;  7  Scott,  537  ;  Parker  v. 
Gibbons,  1  Q.  B.  421  ;  Fowler  v.  Payne,  49  Miss.  32. 


192  KOf  ICE   TO   QUIT,  AND   TURNING  OtJt. 

"  Well,  I  must  say,"  said  Mrs.  L.,  "  that  I  fear  I 
am  bound  for  life  to 

"  '  A  wretch  so  empty,  that  if  e'er  there  be 
In  nature  found  the  least  vacuity, 
'Twill  be  in  him.'" 

"  Another  reason  is,"  broke  in  Jones,  anxious  to 
throw  oil  upon  the  troubled  waters,  "  that  in  the 
case  of  furnished  lodgings,  as  in  the  case  of  a  house, 
the  rent  is  deemed  to  issue  out  of  the  land  * — none 
of  it  out  of  the  furniture  2 — so  that  the  landlord 
can  distrain  for  the  whole  rent ; 3  and  even  were  he 
to  turn  the  tenant  out,  no  apportionment  could  be 
made  for  the  goods.*  The  law  makes  no  differ- 
ence between  lodgers  and  other  tenants  as  to  the 
payment  of  their  rents,  or  turning  them  out  of  pos- 
session." 

"  Pray  tell  me,  then,  how  much  notice  must  we 
give  ? "  demanded  Mrs.  Lawyer  in  tones  which 
would  lead  one  to  imagine  that  she  provided  all  the 
capital  necessary  to  run  the  family  machine. 

Jones  replied  :  ';  If  the  hiring  of  the  apartments 
be  from  half  year  to  half  year,  half  a  year's  notice 
to  quit  must  be  given  ;  if  from  quarter  to  quarter, 
a  quarter's  notice ;  if  from  month  to  month,  a 
month's  notice ;  if  from  week  to  week,  a  week's 
notice  ;  and  if  a  lodger  leaves  without  giving  such 

1  Newman  v.  Anderton,  2  Bos.  &  P.  N.  K.  224  ;  Cadogan  v. 
Kennet,  Cowp.  432. 

2  Ibid. 

8  Newman  v.  Anderton.  supra. 

4  Ernot  v.  Cole,  Dyer,  2126;  Cadogan  v.  Kennet,  supra. 
But  see  Salmon  v.  Matthews,  8  Mees.  &  W.  827. 


NOVICE  TO   QUIT,  AND   TUBNINO  OUT.  193 

notice  he  is  liable  for  the  rent  for  a  half  year,  or  a 
quarter,  or  a  month,  or  a  week,  as  the  case  may  be."  * 

"  Still,"  I  said,  anxious  to  contradict  somebody, 
"  it  has  been  ruled  by  a  very  learned  judge  that  in 
the  case  of  an  ordinary  weekly  tenancy  a  week's 
notice  to  quit  is  not  implied  as  part  of  the  contract 
unless  there  be  usage  to  that  effect,  but  that  such  a 
tenancy  will  cease  at  the  end  of  the  term  without 
any  notice  ;  in  fact,  he  said  that  he  was  not  aware 
that  it  had  ever  been  decided  that  in  the  case  of  an 
ordinary  weekly  or  monthly  tenancy  a  month's  or 
week's  notice  to  quit  must  be  given.  It  is  to  be  re- 
garded as  a  tenancy  for  a  week  or  a  month  rather 
than  as  a  tenancy  from  week  to  week,  or  month  to 
month,  determinable  by  notice.  Were  it  otherwise, 
such  tenancies  would,  in  almost  all  cases,  necessarily 
continue  for  a  double  period,  which  might  be  incon- 
venient to  one  or  both  parties.  .  Of  course,  even  in 
absence  of  such  usage,  a  weekly  tenant  who  enters 
on  a  fresh  week  may  be  bound  to  continue  until  the 
expiration  of  that  week,  or  pay  the  week's  rent.2 
And  in  New  York  it  has  been  decided  that  in  a 
renting  by  the  month,  or  from  month  to  month,  a 
month's  notice  to  quit  is  not  requisite."  3 

"  But  surely,"  urged  Jones,  "  a  reasonable  notice 
must  be  gieen  of  the  ending  of  a  weekly  tenancy. 
I  remember  one  case  in  which  my  father  was  con- 
cerned, Earle,  C.  J.,  said  that,  although  it  had  been 

1  Parry  v.  Hazell,  1  Esp.  64;  Peacock  v.  Ruffan,  6  Esp.  4; 
Doe  v.  Bay  ley,  6  East,  121;  Woodfall,  8  Ed.  176. 

2Huffcll  v.  Armstead,  7  Car.  &  P.  56;  Peacock  v.  Raffan,  6 
Esp.  4;  Townc  v.  Campbell,  3  Com.  B.  94. 

8"People  v.  Giolet,  14  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  130. 


194  NOTICE   TO   QUIT,  AND   TUKNTNQ  OUT. 

laid  down  that  a  weekly  or  a  monthly  holding  does 
not  require  a  week's  or  a  month's  notice  to  deter- 
mine it  unless  there  be  some  special  agreement  or 
custom,  he  did  not  find  that  any  person  ever  held 
that  the  interest  of  a  tenant  so  holding  might  be  put 
an  end  to  without  any  notice  at  all.  It  would  be 
most  unreasonable,  he  continued,  if  a  landlord  were 
entitled  to  turn  his  weekly  tenant  out  at  twelve 
o'clock  at  night  on  the  last  day  of  the  week ;  some 
notice  must  be  necessary.  Williams,  J.,  gave  it  as 
his  view,  that  whether  it  be  a  tenancy  from  year  to 
year,  or  week  to  week,  in  either  case  there  must  be 
a  legal  expression  of  intention  that  the  tenancy 
should  cease.  The  inclination  of  his  opinion  was 
that  where  the  holding  is  from  week  to  week  a 
week's  notice  should  be  given,  and  a  month's  notice 
where  the  tenancy  is  from  month  to  month.  Judge 
Willes,  in  a  half  frightened  sort  of  way,  as  if  he  had 
no  doubt  he  was  wrong,  considered  that  because  in 
a  tenancy  from  year  to  year  half  a  year's  notice  only 
was  required,  therefore  he  could  not  see  how  it  was 
possible  that  a  tenant  from  week  to  week  should  be 
entitled  to  more  than  half  a  week's  notice.  While 
Byles,  J.,  remarked  that  the  notice  to  a  weekly 
tenant  should  be  a  reasonable  one."  I 

"  And  doubtless  he  is  right.  And  if  it  is  nec- 
essary at  all,  it  must,  of  course,  expire  on  the 
proper  day,  i.  e.,  at  the  end  of  some  week  of  the 
tenancy."  2 

"  Yes ;  and  a  weekly  tenancy  beginning  on  Satur- 

i  Jones  v.  Mills,  10  Com.  B.  X.  S.  788. 
2Finlayson  v.  Bayley,  5  Car.  &  P.  67. 


NOTICE   TO   QUIT,  AND  TURNING  OUT.  195 

day  ends  on  Saturday.1  How  would  it  be,  Lawyer, 
if  the  landlord  rented  the  rooms  to  some  one  else 
before  the  expiration  of  the  week  ?  " 

"  That  would  amount  to  a  rescission  of  the  bar- 
gain, and  he  could  not  sue  the  defaulting  tenant  for 
rent  for  the  days  the  apartments  were^mpty  ;  2  but 
lighting  or  warming  the  rooms,  or  putting  up  '  to 
let'  in  the  window,  will  not  prevent  the  owner 
looking  to  the  man  who  has  left  without  giving  the 
proper  notice."  3 

"  I  suppose  that  one  cannot  leave  without  notice 
because  he  fears  that  the  landlord's  things  are  likely 
to  be  seized  by  the  landlord  paramount,"  said  Jones. 

"  Of  course  you  can  make  an  express  stipulation 
to  that  effect  ;4  otherwise  you  cannot  leave."5 

"Well,"  said  my  wife,  "I  presume  that  at  all 
events  the  landlord  will  have  to  rebuild  if  we  are 
to  continue  paying  rent." 

"By  no  means.  The  rule  is,  that  a  landlord, 
after  an  injury  by  fire,  is  under  no  obligation  to  re- 
build or  repair  the  house  for  the  benefit  of  the  ten- 
ant," 6  was  my  melancholy  reply. 

Fortunately,  breakfast  does  not  last  as  long  as 
dinner;  so  this  conversation  (which  had  grown  irk- 
some to  myself,  and  has  proved  probably  equally,  if 
not  more  so,  to  my  readers)  was  brought  to  a  con- 
clusion before  very  much  more  was  said  on  this 

1  Huffell  v.  Armistead,  7  Car.  &  P.  56. 

2  Walls  v.  Atcheson,  3  Bing.  462. 

8  Griffith  v.  Hodges,  2  Car.  &  P.  419. 
<  Bethett  v .  Blencome,  3  M.  &  G.  119. 
s  Ricket  v.  Tullick,  6  Car.  &  P.  66. 
6Doupe  v.  Genin,  45  N.  Y.  119. 


196  NOTICE  TO   QtJIT,  ASTD   TtTBNING  OUT. 

subject,  and  I  gladly  availed  myself  of  the  oppor- 
tunity of  going  out  on  business. 

Down  town  I  met  my  old  friend,  Dr.  Lane,  who 
told  me  of  the  tiff  he  had  just  had  with  his  land- 
lord. Some  months  previously  he  had  hired  from 
one  Johnson  certain  rooms  in  a  fashionable  local- 
ity, at  a  rental  of  a  couple  of  hundred  dollars  a 
year,  with  the  privilege  of  putting  a  brass  plate 
bearing  his  name  upon  the  front  door.  Shortly 
afterward  Johnson  leased  the  whole  premises  to 
Mr.  Dixon  for  twenty -one  years.  In  course  of 
time,  the  health  of  the  neighborhood  being  excel- 
lent, Lane  got  in  arrear ;  so  Dixon  removed  the 
brass  plate,  and  refused  to  let  the  Doctor  have  access 
to  his  rooms  —  in  fact,  finding  them  open  one  day, 
and  the  lodger  out,  he  fastened  the  outer  door,  and 
so  excluded  him  altogether.  Lane  sued  for  dam- 
ages, and  the  jury  kindly  gave  him  £10  for  the 
breaking  and  entry  into  his  room,  expelling  him 
therefrom  and  seizing  his  etceteras,  and  £20  for 
the  removal  of  the  brass  plate.  Dixon,  rather  nat- 
urally, was  dissatisfied  with  the  verdict  of  these 
twelve  men  and  appealed  to  the  court,  who,  how- 
ever, agreed  that  the  jury  were  perfectly  correct  in 
their  view  of  the  matter,  and  that  the  Doctor  might 
keep  his  £30.  The  removal  of  the  plate  was  con- 
sidered a  distinct  and  substantive  trespass.1  Of 
course  the  disciple  of  Galen  was  overjoyed,  and  in- 
sisted upon  my  taking  a  glass  of  something  alco- 
holic while  he  told  me  of  the  little  trip  that  he 
purposed  taking  at  his  landlord's  expense. 

1  Lane  v.  Dixon,  3  M.  G.  &  S.  776. 


NOTICE   TO   QUIT,  AND   TURNING  OUT.  197 

After  parting  from  the  worthy  leech  ray  brain 
was  rather  puzzled  to  draw  a  distinction  between 
his  case  and  one  decided  some  time  ago,  where  one 
Bloxham,  a  poulterer  and  a  keeper  of  a  beer-shop, 
claiming  a  sum  of  money  to  be  due  to  him  by  a 
lodger — one  Hartley  by  name — locked  up  his  goods 
in  the  room  in  which  Hartley  had  put  them,  pock- 
eted the  key,  and  refused  the  boarder  access  to 
them  till  his  bill  was  paid — yet  it  was  decided  that 
what  was  done  was  not  such  a  taking  of  goods  as 
would  sustain  the  action  for  trespass  brought  by 
poor  Hartley.1  At  last  it  dawned  upon  me  that  in 
the  case  I  was  conning  over  there  had  been  no  act- 
ual taking — the  landlord  never  actually  touched  the 
goods  at  all  —  he  merely  locked  the  door  and  kept 
the  key,  and  therein  it  differed  from  Lane's  suit.2 

In  another  case,  a  landlord,  before  his  tenant's 
time  was  up,  and  contrary  to  his  wishes,  entered 
his  (the  tenant's)  room  and  removed  therefrom 
books,  maps,  and  papers,  placing  them  where  they 
were  damaged  by  the  rain.  The  boarder,  not  lik- 
ing such  treatment,  sued  his  landlord,  and  the  court 
decided  that  the  latter  was  a  trespasser  and  liable 
for  all  damages  sustained,  whether  they  resulted 
from  his  direct  and  immediate  acts,  or  remotely 
from  the  act  of  God.3 

Before  returning  home  I  called  on  a  friend  who 
also  dwelt  in  furnished  apartments.  Far  from  se- 
raphic was  the  state  of  mind  in  which  I  found  him. 

1  Hartley  v.  Bloxham,  3  Q.  B.  701. 

2  Lane  v.  Dixon,  supra,  per  Cresswell,  J. 
3Nowlan  v.  Nevor,  2  Sweeny,  (N.  Y.)  67. 


198  NOTICE   TO   QUIT,  AND   TURNING  OUT. 

"What  can  be  done  to  stop  that  horrid  noise? 
It  will  drive  me  mad !  "  was  his  petulant  salutation. 

I  listened,  and  heard  the  dull,  rumbling  noise  of 
some  wheeled  machine  being  rolled,  now  fast,  now 
slow,  then  up,  then  down,  in  the  room  above. 

"What  is  it?"  I  asked. 

u  Oh,  I  know  what  it  is  only  too  well.  A  foolish 
young  couple  live  up  stairs,  and  their  first  baby  is 
teething  or  something  of  the  sort,  and  whines  and 
howls  incessantly,  so  the  mother  by  day  and  the 
father  by  night  continually  trundle  it  up  and  down 
the  room  in  a  parlor  baby-carriage,  making  such  a 
noise  that  I  can  neither  read  nor  sleep.  It  is  a 
regular  nuisance,  and  I'll  have  it  stopped." 

"  I  suppose  that  they  don't  do  it  merely  to  dis- 
turb and  annoy  you,  but  rather  for  the  good  of  the 
juvenile,"  I  remarked. 

"As  for  that  matter  I  presume  their  intentions 
are  honorable,  but  that  does  not  make  any  differ- 
ence." 

H  Yes  it  does ;  the  very  point  has  been  decided 
by  Judge  Van  Hoesen,  of  Now  York.  To  him  a 
Mr.  Pool  applied  for  an  injunction  to  prevent  one 
of  his  fellow-lodgers  wheeling  a  sick  child  about 
the  room." 

"  Well,  what  was  the  result  ?  " 

"  Why,  as  it  did  not  appear  that  the  noise  was 
made  unnecessarily,  but  only  from  the  attempt  to 
soothe  the  infant,  the  court  refused  to  interfere 
with  the  amusement  of  the  child,  saying  that  the 
occupants  of  buildings  where  there  are  other  ten- 
ants cannot  restrain  the  others  from  any  use  they 


NOTICE   TO   QUIT,  AND   TTJBNING  OUT.  199 

may  choose  to  make  of  their  own  apartments,  con- 
sistent with  good  neighborhood  and  with  a  reason- 
able regard  for  the  comfort  of  others." 

"  Humph! " 

"  The  judge  added  that  if  the  rocking  of  a  cra- 
dle, the  wheeling  of  a  carriage,  the  whirling  of  a 
sewing  machine,  or  the  discord  of  ill-played  music, 
disturb  the  inmates  of  an  apartment-house,  no  relief 
by  injunction  can  be  obtained,  unless  the  proof  be 
clear  that  the  noise  is  unreasonable,  and  made  with- 
out due  regard  to  the  rights  and  comforts  of  other 
occupants.1  And  in  England  it  was  held  that  the 
noise  of  a  piano  from  a  neighbor's  house,  or  the 
noise  of  neighbor's  children  in  their  nursery,  are 
noises  we  must  expect,  and  must,  to  a  considerable 
extent,  put  up  with."  2 

"  At  all  events,  no  judge  can  compel  me  to  stay  in 
the  house  and  be  annoyed  in  this  way.  I'll  give 
notice  to  quit  at  once." 

***** 

Here  endeth  the  account  of  our  experiences  in 
the  matter  of  furnished  apartments,  boarding- 
houses,  and  hotels.  After  this  Mrs.  Lawyer  and 
myself  settled  down  quietly  to  housekeeping.  Our 
experiences  in  that  line  have  nothing  to  do  with 
the  subject  of  this  book. 

1  Pool  v.  Higinson,  18  Alb.  L.  J.  82. 

2  Hellish,  L.  J.  L.  K.  8  Ch.  471. 


INDEX. 


Absence  of  guest — loss  of  baggage  during,  p.  40. 
Accommodation  —  innkeeper  need  only  supply  reason- 
able, p.  7. 

payment  for  bad,  p.  10. 

Action  against  innkeeper — for  refusing  to  receive  guest, 
p.  12. 

for  supplying  bad  food,  p.  14. 
Agreement  to  furnish — p.  177. 
Agreement  "with  innkeeper— as  to  board,  pp.  61, 168. 

as  to  room,  p.  61. 
Assault — liability  of  innkeeper  for  servant's  assault,  p.  30. 

protecting  guests  from,  pp.  74-124. 

Baggage— what  is,  pp.  74,  80-88. 

articles  of  jewelry,  p.  86. 

innkeeper  liable  for  loss  in  bus,  p.  22. 

and  during  temporary  absence  of  guest,  p.  40. 

innkeepers  are  insurers  of,  p.  4(5. 

need  not  be  given  to  landlord,  p.  47. 

where  guest  retains  exclusive  possession,  pp.  51,  52. 

of  one  stopping  elsewhere,  p.  60. 

Ball — innkeeper  not  liable  for  loss  of  a  guest  at,  p.  60. 
Bed — guest  need  not  go  to,  p.  40. 

damp  bed,  p.  105. 

innkeeper  in  bed,  p.  13. 
Betting  and  bets— when  improper,  pp.  63-65. 

when  bets  recovered,  p.  64. 

all  void,  pp.  05,  GO. 

loser  recovering  stakes,  pp.  66,  67. 
Billiards— pp.  70,  71. 
Bird— liable  to  distress,  p.  176. 
Boarder— annoying  fellow-boarders,  pp.  163,  164. 

must  look  after  his  own  goods,  pp.  159,  160. 
Boarding-house— what  is  a,  p.  160. 

differs  from  hotel,  p.  167. 

[201] 


202  INDEX. 

Boarding-house  keeper— liability  of,  pp.  154, 155. 

what  amount  of  care  required  in,  p.  155. 

liable  for  gross  neglect,  p.  160. 

liability  for  theft  by  stranger,  p.  161. 

liability  for  faults  of  servants,  p.  165. 

can  choose  his  lodgers,  p.  167. 

right  of  lien,  p.  169. 
Breakages  in  hotel— when  guest  is  liable  for,  p.  101. 

*  by  boarder,  p.  188. 
Burglars— p.  107. 

Card-playing — description  of,  p.  71. 

in  private,  p.  08. 
Carelessness  of  guest — in  elevator,  p.  24. 

when  intoxicated,  p.  58. 

loss  through,  pp.  108,  109. 

leaving  door  unlocked,  pp.  112-115. 
Carriage— left  outside  inn-yard,  p.  118. 

stolen,  p.  119. 

Cat  distrainable— p.  176. 
Clothing — innkeeper  need  not  supply,  p.  19. 

innkeeper's  lien  on,  pp.  137-141. 

liable  to  seizure  for  rent,  pp.  175-176. 
Commercial  traveler— goods  of,  in  private  room,  pp.  52, 

.112. 

Dinner  hours— p.  54. 

Dinner-set— p.  77. 

Distraining  for  rent — furnished  house,  p.  174. 

what  things  liable  to  distress,  pp.  175,  176. 

See  CAT,  CLOTHING. 
Dog  in  hotel— p.  43. 
Door — left  unlocked  at  innkeeper's  request,  p.  53. 

not  necessary  to  lock,  pp.  112, 114. 

left  open,  pp.  154,  155. 
Door-bell—lodger  entitled  to  use,  p.  182. 
Door-plate — removing,  p.  196. 

Ejecting  guests— for  bad  manners,  p.  26. 

for  non-payment,  p.  40. 
Ejecting  tenants— pp.  196,  197. 
Emigrants — house  for,  an  inn,  p.  20. 
Entomological— pp.  16. 187. 


INDEX.  203 

Explosion  of  stove — p.  179. 
Excessive  charges— pp.  30, 124. 
Expectorating— pp.  20-22. 

Fire — liability  of  innkeeper  for  losses  by,  p.  103. 
Food — innkeeper  selling  bad  food,  p.  14. 

boarding-house  keeper  selling  bad  food,  p.  165. 
Friend — cannot  sue  for  lost  goods,  p.  59. 

See  VISITOR. 

Furnished  apartments— contract  for,  must  be  in  writing, 
p.  174. 

liability  of  landlord  to  repair,  p.  180. 

leaving  for  disrepair,  p.  181. 

lodger  entitled  to  all  appurtenances,  p.  182. 

must  be  free  from  vermin,  pp.  183,  184. 

must  be  properly  furnished,  p.  185. 

must  be  lit  for  immediate  habitation,  p.  186. 

notice  to  quit,  pp.  191-194. 

noise  of  fellow-lodgers  in,  pp.  198,  199. 

Gaming— forbidden  in  inns,  p.  68. 

what  is,  p.  68. 

lawful  games,  pp.  70,  71. 

unlawful  games,  p.  69. 

Goods  and  property— definition  of,  p.  85. 
Guest— must  be  a  traveler,  p.  59. 

one  purchasing  refreshment  may  be  a  guest,  p.  59. 

neighbor  not  a,  p.  14. 

when  able  to  pay  must  always  be  admitted,  p.  9. 

when  tender  necessary,  pp.  9,  10. 

may  be  refused  admission  if  improper,  pp.  10, 11. 

or  suffering  from  contagious  disease,  p.  10. 

or  if  inn  is  full,  p.  11. 

or  if  he  is  in  filthy  state,  p.  11. 

need  not  register  his  name,  p.  13. 

nor  go  to  bed,  p.  40. 

nor  take  all  his  meals  at  inn,  p.  60. 

cannot  carry  on  business  at  inn,  p.  30. 

liability  when  retaining  exclusive  possession  of  goods, 
p.  59. 

for  breakages,  p.  101. 

no  lien  on.  pp.  137,  138. 


204  EODEX. 

Horse  of  guest— of  one  stopping  elsewhere,  pp.  60,  122, 
123. 

after  departure  of  guest,  pp.  62, 120. 

stolen  from  inn  stable,  p.  129. 

injured  in  inn  stable,  pp.  120, 121. 

injured  in  field,  p.  122. 

lien  on,  for  keep  of  another,  p.  128. 

for  its  own  keep,  p.  129. 

for  its  owner's  keep,  p.  127. 

stolen  horses,  p.  132. 
Hotel — differs  not  from  inn,  pp.  2,  3. 

derivation  of,  p.  3. 

American  and  English,  pp.  54-£7. 

See  Isx. 
Hotel-keeper— See  INNKEEPER. 

Improper  persons— need  not  be  admitted  into  hotel,  p.  13. 
Inevitable  accident — liability  of  innkeeper  for,  p.  47. 
Infant— lien  on  goods  of,  p.  149. 
Inn — derivation  of  word,  p.  3. 

differs  not  from  hotel,  pp.  2,  3. 

origin  of,  pp.  3, 4. 

development  of,  p.  5. 

definition  of,  pp.  18,  19. 

description  of  co  untry  inn,  pp.  7,  8. 

of  city  inn,  p.  23. 

sign  not  essential  to,  p.  5. 
Innkeeper — definition  of,  pp.  5,  19. 

need  not  let  guest  choose  a  room,  pp.  7,  39. 

must  receive  all  proper  persons,  pp.  9,  167. 

but  not  those  disorderly,  p.  10. 

or  having  contagious  disease,  p.  10. 

or  if  house  be  full,  p.  10. 

nor  thieves,  nor  policemen,  p.  11. 

sickness  no  excuse  for  refusing  to  receive  guests,  p.  11. 

nor  absence,  p.  11. 

nor  being  in  bed,  p.  13. 

but  sickness  of  servants  is,  p.  12. 

or  infancy,  p.  12. 
See  LIEX. 

not  bound  to  supply  clothes,  p.  19. 

liable  for  baggage  lost  in  bus,  pp.  22,  62. 

for  assault  of  servants  upon  guest,  p.  30. 


205 


Innkeeper — Continued. 

for  goods  of  guest  lost  or  stolen,  pp.  45,  46,  92. 

unless  guest  was  negligent,  pp.  45,  108. 

are  insurers  of  guest's  property,  pp.  46, 103. 

in  whatever  part  of  hotel,  pp.  47,  48,  92,  111. 

cannot  make  guest  take  charge,  p.  48. 

when  his  liability  ceases,  pp.  61-63. 

liability  for  guest's  money,  p.  90. 

for  loss  by  fire,  p.  103. 

for  acts  of  mire,  p.  104. 

for  loss  by  burglars,  p.  107. 

for  horses  and  carriages,  pp.  118-124. 

goods  outside  inn,  p.  118. 

lien  on  horses,  pp.  128-133. 
Intoxication— loss  of  goods  by  guest,  p.  58. 

innkeeper  drunk  in  bed,  p.  69. 

Laundress— liability  of  innkeeper  to,  p.  29. 

Lawyer's  dinners— p.  34. 

Leakage  of  roof — p.  180. 

Liability  of  innkeeper — when  it  ceases,  pp.  61,  62. 

limitation  of,  p.  80. 

statutory  limitation — p.  81. 

construed  strictly,  pp.  82,  83. 

not  applicable  to  horses,  p.  120. 
Livery-stable  keeper— lien  of,  pp.  134,  135. 
Locking  door — pp.  112,  114. 
Lien — right  of,  cannot  be  sold,  pp.  131,  148. 

on  goods  of  third  parties,  pp.  132.  146,  150. 

special  agreement  as  to  payment,  p.  134. 

of  livery-stable  keeper,  p.  134. 

for  improving  horse,  p.  135. 

none  on  person  of  guest,  pp.  137,  138. 

nor  on  clothing,  pp.  137-140. 

why  innkeepers  have  a,  p.  144. 

only  on  goods  of  guests,  pp.  145,  146. 

when  it  ceases,  p.  147. 

no  limit  to  amount  of,  p.  148. 

boarding-house  keepers,  p.  169. 
See  HORSES. 

Manners  at  table— pp.  26,  27. 
Matches— taking,  p.  102. 
18. 


206  INDEX. 

Misstatements  as  to  hotels— p.  23. 
Money — guest  depositing  in  safe,  p.  84. 

liability  of  landlord  for,  pp.  90,  91,  93. 

when  entrusted  to  third  party,  p.  96. 
Mosquitoes— p.  74. 

Necessaries  of  a  wife — pp.  32,  33. 
Neighbor — cannot  be  a  guest,  pp.  14,  60. 

unless  traveling,  pp.  14,  59. 
Noise  of  boarders— pp.  120, 121, 198,  199. 
Notice  to  quit— pp.  191, 194. 

Parties  dining  together— p.  28. 

Prize  candy— p.  71. 

Pullman  car— not  a  common  inn,  pp.  76,  77. 

Rats  and  mice— depredations  of,  pp.  104,  105. 
Refreshment  bar— not  an  inn,  p.  35. 
Register— guest  need  not  enter  name  in,  p.  13. 
Repairs — liability  of  landlord  for,  pp.  180, 181. 

after  a  fire,  p.  195. 
Restaurant — not  an  inn,  p.  35. 

Robbery— liability  of  host  for  loss  of  guest's  goods,  pp.  45, 
92,94. 

by  guest— pp.  53,  110. 
Room — landlord  to  choose,  pp.  7,  39. 

trespassing  on  guest's,  p.  73. 

Safe — depositing  in,  p.  79. 

See  VALUABLES. 

Shaving — when  barber  liable  for  accidents,  p.  9tf. 
Singing — of  fellow-boarders,  pp.  120,  121. 
Sleeping-car    owners — neither  innkeepers   nor  common 

carriers,  pp.  76,  77. 

Smells — effect  on  tenants'  rights  of  noxious,  pp.  186,  187. 
Stables — not  a  necessary  for  an  inn,  p.  19. 

landlord's  liability  for  bad,  pp.  120, 121. 
Stove-pipe — passing  through  room,  p.  178. 
Sunday  travelers— must  be  admitted  by  innkeeper,  p.  13= 

Tavern  an  inn — p.  36. 

Tender  of  payment— by  guest,  pp.  9, 10. 

Traveler— who  is  a,  p.  59. 


207 


Valuables — when  need  be  deposited  in  safe,  p.  48. 
notice  of  rule  as  to  deposit  of,  pp.  49,  50,  79. 
personal  jewelry,  p.  79. 
when  to  be  deposited,  pp.  84,  96. 

"Watch— as  to  depositing  in  safe,  pp.  79,  80,  83,  85. 
"Watering-place— hotel  at,  p.  168. 
Water-pipes— leakage  of,  p.  178. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 


